Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The Mod with the Migraine
She used public office for private gain, even if that gain is marginal its still textbook petty corruption and misuse of resources.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
She/her
Sigh. It’s one of those things where probably 80% of electeds have done something similar or worse, but also that’s a terrible standard/excuse, but also this whole thing looks like a pretty blatant power grab.
So in a couple bits of news that haven't been covered:
- Former Admiral William H. McRaven, who oversaw the raid that killed bin Laden, penned an open letter requesting that his security clearance be revoked in a show of solidarity with Brennan.
Former CIA director John Brennan, whose security clearance you revoked on Wednesday, is one of the finest public servants I have ever known. Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him.
Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.
Like most Americans, I had hoped that when you became president, you would rise to the occasion and become the leader this great nation needs.
A good leader tries to embody the best qualities of his or her organization. A good leader sets the example for others to follow. A good leader always puts the welfare of others before himself or herself.
Your leadership, however, has shown little of these qualities. Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation.
If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be.
And Trump keeps on Digging Himself Deeper as, in an impromptu interview with the Wall Street Journal, CNBC source due to WSJ paywall, that part of the rationale was because of Brennan's involvement in establishing the Mueller probe. If this doesn't prove to be the final nail in the coffin, I'll be shocked... unless it's a result of Trump doing something worse.
Edited by ironballs16 on Aug 16th 2018 at 3:21:59 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Well said, Admiral![[awesome]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/minis/award_star_gold_3.png "[awesome]"){kind=small}
.
My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare
. . . Wouldn't Mc Raven be doing better as a private citizen mole within the Trump Administration instead of deliberately barring himself out of it?
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
He's not in the administration - he's in the same position where Brennan was, where he still has clearance as a "just in case" fallback.
Oh, almost forgot this one - according to a source within the DoD, Trump's proposed military parade is estimated to cost $50 million from the Pentagon and a further $42 million from interagency partners like DHS, bringing the cost up to $92 million.
A Pentagon spokesman said in an email to CNBC that the Defense Department expects to make an announcement soon, but he would not comment further. The White House referred questions to the Defense Department.
The $92 million cost estimate includes security, transportation of parade assets, aircraft, as well as temporary duty for troops. The official also noted that while the size and scope of the military parade can still shift, the plans currently include approximately eight tanks, as well as other armored vehicles, including Bradleys, Strykers and M113s.
The official also said that experts put to rest concerns about whether the Abrams tank, which weighs just shy of 70 tons, would ruin infrastructure in Washington. Their analysis found that, because of the vehicle's distributed weight and track pads, the streets of the nation's capital would not be compromised.
The parade is also expected to include helicopter, fighter jet, transport aircraft as well as historical military plane flyovers. Troops in period uniforms representing the past, present and future forces will march in the parade, as well.
Edited by ironballs16 on Aug 16th 2018 at 3:40:58 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/
538's Midterm Election Forecast for the House of Representatives.
What's the breakdown of the House currently?
Professional Forum Ninja
On Wednesday evening, the former Trump advisor’s wife—Simona Mangiante Papadopoulos—took to Twitter to crowdsource an attorney willing to represent her husband pro-bono
“Attorney wanted for George Papadopoulo, Pro Bono!” wrote Simona, while misspelling their last name.
The Italian-born partner later told The Daily Caller that “George should drop his plea agreement” and that she planned “to find a lawyer” to “sue the government.”
Both parties became centerpieces in the Russia saga after George was arrested by the FBI last July for misleading the bureau about communicating with Russian operatives. As a foreign policy aide on the Trump campaign, the energy consultant discussed opposition research on Hillary Clinton with the Kremlin-connected Joseph Mifsud.
While testifying before House Democrats last month, Simona called her husband’s cooperation with Mueller a “brave choice.”
“His role in the ‘Russia Investigation’ has been profoundly misunderstood and abused. His young life has been on hold for too long now, and all our savings are now exhausted in legal fees,” wrote Simona on a Go Fund Me campaign she launched earlier this summer.
A pro-bono lawyer would provide life support to the couple’s bank account: As of writing this article, the couple’s campaign for legal fees has raised only $490 of its $75,000 goal. By contrast, former FBI agent Peter Strzok—who investigated the question of collusion until he was fired by the bureau this week—raised $418,872 through a Go Fund Me page established just two days ago.
George’s sentencing is scheduled for September 7.
Neither party responded to Observer’s request for comment.
Edited by tclittle on Aug 16th 2018 at 6:08:45 AM
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
236R/193D.
Edited by Ramidel on Aug 16th 2018 at 3:08:18 AM
@sgamer82: Keep in mind when interpreting those numbers how probability works. We can definitely say at this particular point in time that the Democrats are favorites to win the House, but it's not definite; the GOP holding on the house by the hairs of their chin remains a realistic possibility. About as realistic as Trump winning in 2016, for instance, and as was the case in 2016 we're just a normal sized polling error away from a scenario where the GOP holds onto the House by the skin of their teeth. Though if that happens a second time, I think it might be time to start asking whether polling is systematically underestimating the GOP (or voter suppression efforts) on election day.
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Aug 16th 2018 at 7:19:43 AM
It flat out says the Republicans have 25% chance of maintaining hold.
Yes, but plenty of people don't seem to realize that a 75% chance of the Democrat winning is not a positive prediction; see The Media Has a Probability Problem.
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
~Cooking Cat [1]: Does it look like I or any other citizen of Saudi Arabia have a say in what fucked-up decision-making our regime engages in?
And if it wasn't obvious from the above... I do not approve of the Sauds' actions in said diplomatic crisis. Hell, I even got into an argument with my mom over this (long story short, she thinks the Canadian government officials and news media involved are lying out of their ass and/or only claiming moral hig ground as a prelude to launch another Iraqi Freedom-style "liberation"note ).
@Papadopoulos wanting to break the bargain he struck with Mueller by suing the government: ... I can't tell if it's a good thing or a bad thing.
Edited by MarqFJA on Aug 16th 2018 at 2:42:51 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Figure of Hourai
Well, it would be a profoundly stupid thing to do with less than a month until sentencing.
Avatar Source
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Doesn't answer my question. Suppose that he somehow succeeds: Would that be good or bad for the anti-Trump / pro-Democrat cause?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
No, but America has a deeply flawed and archaic political system with numerous institutions that were deliberately designed to entrench the power of rural white landowners, and which continue to do so to this day. Among large portions of the voting-age population there's a pervasive sense of hopelessness and fatalism weighing on voter turnout rates like a rock, and even though the United States is home to many of the top colleges and universities in the world (one area where America genuinely is great), our primary education system is a mess by the standards of the developed world.
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
... I'm not sure how that relates to my rhetorical question aimed at Cooking Cat, or even the post of mine that he was responding to.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Cap just seems like to like bring that information up no matter the discussion.
I don’t really think the American political system is as flawed as it’s often made out to be. It’s far from perfect, but all things considered it works pretty well.
Meaning that neither of our countries' foreign policies are particularly responsible to the citizenry as a whole, so we should all take a step back on hating each other's people.
This is precisely what I was getting at.
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Aug 16th 2018 at 8:40:39 AM
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
When I said "deep-rooted hatred for this country", I had been talking about a rather nebulous entity that is mostly the government but also includes anyone that either knowingly supports its more immoral actions (towards foreigners or its own citizens, doesn't matter which one) or downplays said actions' horribleness note . It should be a no-brainer that I know the American people aren't entirely or even mostly irredeemably evil; I haven't even done that towards the Israeli people in several years.
Also, just to set the record straight, those extremely dark and violent thoughts I'm having over the Tulsa massacre are specifically directed at the scum who perpetrated the atrocity and every single "white" person who is culpable in covering the whole thing up and not having any of the aforementioned scum prosecuted for their crimes.
Edited by MarqFJA on Aug 16th 2018 at 3:58:00 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
I'm sorry but there are far better ways to say that, like this isn't twitter and there isn't any kind of text limit. Things like saying how much you hate this country isn't productive in the slightest and is rather broad by its very nature.
