|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 24, 2019 12:18:34 GMT
The Mueller Hearing this morning at 8:30 AM. And, yes, it absolutely belongs in the Politics thread because that what is - 100% politics.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 24, 2019 13:37:20 GMT
I've been listening. Why? I guess smashing my head against the wall isn't painful enough. Having been informed at the outset that Mr. Mueller wasn't going to go outside the report or provide any additional information, so far, the Democrats on the committee are reading the (sometimes very) negative parts of the report and their "questions" are simply "isn't that what the report said?"; the Republicans are pretty exclusively complaining that the very existence of Vol. 2 of the report (the part on the obstruction allegations) was outside Mueller's purview.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 24, 2019 13:45:00 GMT
I have to add, the sanctimony of these House members is so off-putting. It's nothing new and it's not surprising, but somehow every time I hear it, it hits me anew.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 24, 2019 20:37:01 GMT
I'm going to dip my toes into this political water, but I reserve to exit on a dime, too.
I watched the entire morning hearing and only snippets of the afternoon proceedings. My first impressions were focused on Mueller himself. After all of the buildup I read through the months (or now, years) regarding Mueller's reputation, work ethic, and overall competency, I was extremely disappointed. He stuttered and stammered. He could not hear the questions and sometimes did not appear to understand them and had to have several questions repeated.
I knew he would be evasive for several reasons; that didn't bother me. But, sometimes he didn't appear to remember certain facts, needed to look up things, and almost seemed surprised when he went back and re-read a passage. It was like, "oh, yeah, that's a good point", like he was caught off guard. Again, I thought Mueller would be this sharp, Mr. Know It All (and I mean that in a good way), "expert" on the findings, but there were times for a second where I actually thought he was having a "senior moment". It was more than apparent that the congress people were much more informed on the findings than Mueller himself. I realize they individually only took certain segments to concentrate on, but it was almost like they caught Mueller off guard. They never showed Mueller's counsel sitting next to him, but I wonder if that guy was giving him prompts.
OK, I took two basic things from the proceedings. It was immediately apparent - in the first five minutes, in the first five seconds - that this was thinly-veiled attempt by the democrats to 1) get as much ammo for impeachment, and 2) dirty Trump up as much as possible to affect the upcoming election. The democrats mostly avoided the Russian collusion debate, and focused exclusively on the obstruction of justice case. And I use the word "case" because I believe they will continue to call for more investigation. They won't stop until Trump is impeached or until he loses the next election. More on that in a second. It also wouldn't surprise me if the democrats actually try to circumvent (I'm at a loss for the right legal term) the statute that says you can't indict a sitting president. They want to challenge this, they want to override this. They want to try Trump on an obstruction of justice charge so bad...This ain't over.
Finally, this whole spectacle is an embarrassment and a disgrace. These congress people are elected officials who are wasting their time, my time, your time, and our time. They are spending endless months and money trying to run an elected president out of office. That's what it's all about. He (Trump) is gonna pay for defeating their candidate. They are going to do whatever they can do to make his presidency - and life - as miserable as possible. They want him to fail. But how is that helping us, the people, the country? What about doing the business that they elected to do? Working on the issues. Working for their constituency. I really see no end to this.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 24, 2019 22:03:10 GMT
Some good observations and points, there. I'll weigh in on a few.
No question Mueller wasn't on top of things. The NPR team doing analysis in breaks said as much, too. He is in his mid-70s, though, and I think it's important to remember he isn't the person who performed this investigation: he's the guy who was in charge of the dozens of people, hundreds of interviews, etc. So for him, I think it's safe to say it's true that what he knows about a certain issue is what is in that report ... and little or nothing else. I think that's inevitable, frankly, but I think his age and the sensitivity of the situation make it more apparent.
Then there's that, the sensitivity of the situation. I've read recently that Mueller, throughout his career, HATED the politics that get played in committee hearings, which I can certainly understand. He is in the center of this obviously cynical battle between two teams who are both blatantly ignoring valid aspects of the other's points in the interest of their partisan mission. He put out the report and wanted to go back to private life. Instead he got hauled in front of Congress so other people could grandstand. He was trying not to say anything he hadn't already written, and so it's obvious that's going to be tough. (You noticed no doubt every time someone tried to draw conclusions from his written facts, or opine on their greater meaning, he wasn't having it.)
You're right about what the Democrats are doing. I can't help but add that the Republicans, on the other hand, are letting slide facts that had they been done by Obama or Clinton would have them through the roof. People from his campaign, including senior staff, have gone to jail over this. He blatantly lied repeatedly. He's no suffering saint.
But at the same time, impeachment is a waste of time: even if it passes the House (which is not assured by any means despite a Democratic majority), it is DOA in the Senate. There's no doubt about this. What's worse, for Democrats it would end up a huge political LOSS in my opinion. The president would like nothing more than to campaign during and after failed impeachment hearings.
I personally dislike the president, as I've said enough elsewhere that it doesn't warrant repetition here. That dead horse is sufficiently beaten. But he's the president. And after the Mueller investigation, and considering the state of the Congress, there just isn't a reasonable path forward via impeachment or criminal indictment (whether or not one, the other, or both are warranted). What there is in about 15 months is a presidential election. He can be voted out. People who don't want him to be president again should be putting their efforts into ensuring their candidates of choice have the best chance to beat him.
Regardless of all that, I again have to say how much I despise the grandstanding, the cynicism, the faux outrage.
Oh, and the cliches. If I ever hear someone say "follow the evidence wherever it leads" again, my head will explode. (Like "embolden" a few years ago.)
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 25, 2019 0:06:16 GMT
But at the same time, impeachment is a waste of time: even if it passes the House (which is not assured by any means despite a Democratic majority), it is DOA in the Senate. There's no doubt about this. What's worse, for Democrats it would end up a huge political LOSS in my opinion. The president would like nothing more than to campaign during and after failed impeachment hearings.
I personally dislike the president, as I've said enough elsewhere that it doesn't warrant repetition here. That dead horse is sufficiently beaten. But he's the president. And after the Mueller investigation, and considering the state of the Congress, there just isn't a reasonable path forward via impeachment or criminal indictment (whether or not one, the other, or both are warranted). What there is in about 15 months is a presidential election. He can be voted out. People who don't want him to be president again should be putting their efforts into ensuring their candidates of choice have the best chance to beat him.
Regardless of all that, I again have to say how much I despise the grandstanding, the cynicism, the faux outrage.
Oh, and the cliches. If I ever hear someone say "follow the evidence wherever it leads" again, my head will explode. (Like "embolden" a few years ago.)
Yes, exactly. That fact, and the fact that you can't indict a sitting president, is what is bugging me about these proceedings. Then why are they going through with this? Why are we being subjected to it?
This is very Godfather-like. You have Don Corleone (yes, Nancy Pelosi), who has been around and seen it all, telling her party, "I wouldn't go the impeachment route. Be careful what you ask for. The best way is to beat him is at the ballot box." Then you have Michael, Sonny, and Fredo who want to come out blasting. They want to blow Trump away with their machine guns.
I think this has become very personal. Trump has gotten under their skins; they hate him. And, they don't won't to listen to Pelosi. Hey, remember what happened to the Republican Party and people like Newt Gingrich after the Clinton impeachment? People like Nadler and Schiff don't seem to care. I believe they want to see the words "impeachment" and Trump" leading off every news broadcast from now to election day. And, if they begin impeachment proceedings, that's exactly what will happen. Ugh. Nadler and Schiff know the impact the media plays.
I also think people like Nadler and Schiff and others want the first paragraph of their resume', wikipedia page, and obituary to say, "he led the impeachment of then-President Donald Trump."
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 25, 2019 0:41:30 GMT
My best guess at the "why" is the hope that they can convince some of the moderate Republicans, the never-Trumper conservatives who (in many cases) have actually at least tepidly become supporters after the tax bill and regulations cuts, and the undecideds that he's so abhorrent that they simply can't vote for him in '20. They want those people deciding that even if they held their noses and voted for him last time, this time that's just not an option anymore.
Of course while that might be effective in spots, it also is certain to excite his base about him even more, and turn off plenty of moderates who just don't like the politicking, either (or the further-left progressives who are ascendant).
Their better bet for the moderates' support may well be emphasizing the border problems and his language about immigrants, which has been shown to be something the ever-sought after bloc of suburban women don't like. Those are swing voters who could be swung.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 1, 2019 13:18:16 GMT
So I watched the debates last night. The whole thing. It's obvious that the candidates' strategy was to gang up and attack old, sleepy, creepy, crazy Uncle Joe Biden. And his strategy was to not take it and fight back. Defend himself. Defend his record.
Is anybody stepping up? Is anybody making serious - serious - ground on Biden? I guess the polls will tell in a day or two. They have to start eliminating some of these fringe candidates so they can all fit on the same stage!
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 1, 2019 14:33:11 GMT
I watched all of the first night and about 2/3 of the second night. Mostly I am still repulsed by the whole spectacle. The entire thing is set up as a combative game show / reality show and doesn’t allow for remotely substantive discussion. The format is awful, the moderators are mediocre, and the candidates play the terrible parts. Andrew Yang’s closing statement was perfect in encapsulating that fact, and I thought it also did a great job of setting him apart as a reasonable truth-teller. (I also think his phrase of “not left, not right, but forward” has the makings of a great campaign slogan. Not that it will matter, as sadly he’ll probably not rise beyond middle of the pack.) I think several of the relative moderates both nights did a reasonably good job of warning the other candidates (and the public) about the danger of running left before a general election in which they will inevitably have to back to the center … but those moderate candidates mostly have no chance to win, and those far progressives aren’t taking heed. Biden had another tough night. It was good to see him fight back a bit more vigorously, but he is obviously the center of many attacks. And while I’m not saying he is actually slowing down (mentally), he certainly was not sharp, stumbling over points, rambling, forgetting words, etc. Even in his closing, he stumbled over how to support him. As of now, I don’t really see a frontrunner. I don’t believe Biden will survive the primaries, and if he does, I’m not sure he can win—certainly not definitively—over Trump. The energy that was behind Bernie has seeped out throughout the party, and so he not only has Sen. Warren alongside him, but has seriously influenced almost everyone to some degree. He’s bound to be the godfather of this progressive moment, but I think he’ll be a tragic character personally, someone who never got to enjoy his success personally. One-time rising stars like Booker, Castro, and O’Rourke don’t seem like they’re going to capture the national imagination to the degree necessary. In-the-trenches warriors like Klobuchar, Bennet, Hickenlooper aren’t inspiring anyone. Buttigieg is just so young. Interesting long-shots like Gabbard and Yang don’t seem likely to catch fire in a serious way. De Blasio, Gillibrand, and especially Harris (and Castro fits here too) are downright offensive to me. Harris, in particular, I want to mention as atrocious. I find her tactics repulsive and her waffling on issues enraging. She has yet to outline major plans, especially on healthcare, that she sticks to. Yet she’s quick to attack others, especially Biden, in disingenuous ways. I also think it is disgraceful for her to act as if she is owed favor, speaking well past her time allotments not occasionally, but EVERY SINGLE TIME, and when she isn’t called on to respond or speak on an issue she wants to, simply butting in. (I’m still offended by her first debate moment when she said something like “as the only woman of color on the stage, I WILL get a chance to speak on this issue.) It isn’t even some kind of righteous rage, but clearly, obviously political maneuvering. She disgusts me. She is one of the few Democrats for whom I will not vote if she gets the nomination. Even though she is more centrist (presumably…the flip flopping makes it hard to tell) than some others and thus more aligned with my thinking, she is ethically unacceptable. I won’t vote for Trump, either, so she would make me look to a third party or even leaving the top spot blank on the ballot. Off the top of my head, the full list of Democrats I would not vote for if they got the nomination: Booker, Gillibrand, Harris, Williamson. Those I’m most interested in or would consider personal favorites at this point are Yang, Gabbard, Klobuchar, Hickenlooper, Bennet. Others fall somewhere in between. As usual, there is nobody I’m over the moon for.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 1, 2019 15:19:49 GMT
Harris, in particular, I want to mention as atrocious. I find her tactics repulsive and her waffling on issues enraging. She has yet to outline major plans, especially on healthcare, that she sticks to. Yet she’s quick to attack others, especially Biden, in disingenuous ways. I also think it is disgraceful for her to act as if she is owed favor, speaking well past her time allotments not occasionally, but EVERY SINGLE TIME, and when she isn’t called on to respond or speak on an issue she wants to, simply butting in. (I’m still offended by her first debate moment when she said something like “as the only woman of color on the stage, I WILL get a chance to speak on this issue.) It isn’t even some kind of righteous rage, but clearly, obviously political maneuvering. She disgusts me. She is one of the few Democrats for whom I will not vote if she gets the nomination. Even though she is more centrist (presumably…the flip flopping makes it hard to tell) than some others and thus more aligned with my thinking, she is ethically unacceptable. I won’t vote for Trump, either, so she would make me look to a third party or even leaving the top spot blank on the ballot. Totally agree. She literally bothered me and made me very uncomfortable. I think she hurt herself last night.
The people who I'm most impressed with (and you mentioned them) don't have a chance. It's still a little early, but I think it will soon be time to ask the questions - out of this bunch, who is seriously presidential, and who is seriously electable. With this debate format there's too many people cluttering things up, and not enough people are being asked enough questions. Frankly, I don't know how the moderators can figure out where or who to go to.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 1, 2019 17:14:52 GMT
The good news is that the number of debaters will certainly shrink by the next (September) debates. Per NYT:
Already qualified: Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Harris, O’Rourke, Sanders, Warren
Very close/likely: Castro, Klobuchar, Yang
Reasonable chance to qualify: Gabbard, Hickenlooper, recent entrant Tom Steyer
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 6, 2019 13:21:46 GMT
This is probably quite touchy, but I trust you all can take it. I read a tremendously annoying story in the Washington Post this morning (link below). To sum up the story, the New York Times ran a story after the president’s speech on the shootings yesterday. Its headline read “Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism.” Per the Washington Post story, the NY Times headline “sparked instant criticism from members of the public, journalists and politicians, including several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.” The Times changed the headline to “Assailing Hate But Not Guns.” This is a perfect example of a few things: 1) how framing of stories can dramatically influence their tenor (and thus readers’ impressions); and 2) how this publication kowtowed to the spirit of the times. (“of the times…” No pun intended.) 1) The original headline was accurate. The president did call for unity against racism. The changed version makes a political statement (in a straight news story, not an opinion piece) by implying that opposing guns and supporting new gun laws are the norm and are correct, that “assailing hate” alone is insufficient, and that the president failed by not taking up a particular policy position. That’s not a news headline, it’s a political opinion headline. And it also could serve to sway the opinion, even somewhat subconsciously, of casual readers. 2) The publication changed its headline to more directly oppose the president, apparently in response to anti-Trump social media posts. The new headline isn’t wrong, so I won’t go that far—it also correctly describes the president’s speech—but it is a show of weakness from the New York Times. The president’s political opponents criticize your headline, and so you change it to be more negative toward the president? This change was not in the interest of journalism, but to sate the woke anti-Trump online population, to mitigate the harm of being seen as insufficiently anti-Trump. I fully understand that the president is being blamed by some for at least the El Paso shooting because of his anti-immigrant rhetoric, and others (while not going that far) say his words and style both at least stoke negativity and corrode our social environment, indirectly leading to more violence. Those are claims some people make, and the NY Times has no shortage of coverage of those claims. There are fully half a dozen NYT opinion pieces dedicated to the subject since the shootings. But even if there is some degree of truth to those claims, it is far from a direct, immediate causal relationship to the shootings; and any relationship is unproven and to be spoken only tentatively. In other words, it doesn’t belong as the underlying presupposition of a news story covering a speech in which the president said things everyone agrees with. He could have said more things that some people would have believed made it a better speech—maybe “we’ll oppose any political maneuvering to try to use these tragedies to undermine the Second Amendment” if you’re on the right, or “now is the time to come together and pass gun reform” if you’re on the left. But what he said is not divisive on its own, and the headline appropriately captured it. Bad look for journalism, and a reflection of the sad state of our online lives. www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/06/new-york-times-headline-trump-backlash/?hpid=hp_hp-morning-mix_mm-nyt%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 6, 2019 13:39:30 GMT
Agree. The way some people are politicizing these shootings is bothering me very much. I'm getting sick and tired of people saying...anything...that they feel like saying, no matter how irresponsible and harmful it can be. And that's about all I want to say about it at this time.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Aug 9, 2019 2:45:36 GMT
The good news is that the number of debaters will certainly shrink by the next (September) debates. Per NYT: Already qualified: Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Harris, O’Rourke, Sanders, Warren Very close/likely: Castro, Klobuchar, Yang Reasonable chance to qualify: Gabbard, Hickenlooper, recent entrant Tom Steyer Klobuchar and Yang have qualified. Delaney isn't even mentioned in the article. Too bad. Of the little that I've heard from the debates, I actually liked Delaney. www.cnn.com/2019/08/08/politics/andrew-yang-democratic-debate/index.html
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 20, 2019 17:20:10 GMT
Castro has reportedly qualified. Oh goodie (he sarcastically said).
I’m not a fan.
|
|