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
I'm seeing reports on that as well.
PSN ID: FateSeraph | Switch friendcode: SW-0145-8835-0610 Congratulations! She/TheyBreaking news report:
Barr’s personal involvement is likely to stoke further criticism from Democrats pursuing impeachment that he is helping the Trump administration use executive branch powers to augment investigations aimed primarily at the president’s adversaries.
But the high level Justice Department focus on intelligence operatives’ conduct will likely cheer Trump and other conservatives for whom “investigate the investigators” has become a rallying cry.
The direct involvement of the nation’s top law enforcement official shows the priority Barr places on the investigation being conducted by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, who has been assigned the sensitive task of reviewing U.S. intelligence work surrounding the 2016 election and its aftermath.
The attorney general’s active role also underscores the degree to which a nearly three-year old election still consumes significant resources and attention inside the federal government. Current and former intelligence and law enforcement officials expressed frustration and alarm Monday that the head of the Justice Department was taking such a direct role in re-examining what they view as conspiracy theories and baseless allegations of misconduct.
Barr has already made overtures to British intelligence officials, and last week the attorney general traveled to Italy, where he and Durham met senior Italian government officials and Barr asked the Italians to assist Durham, according to one person familiar with the matter. It was not Barr’s first trip to Italy to meet intelligence officials, the person said. The Trump administration has made similar requests of Australia, these people said.
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.
...
David Laufman, a former Justice Department official who was involved in the early stages of the Russia probe, said it was “fairly unorthodox for the attorney general personally to be flying around the world as a point person to further evidence-gathering for a specific Justice Department investigation,” and especially so in Barr’s case.
“Even if one questions, as a threshold matter, the propriety of conducting a re-investigation of the Justice Department’s own prior investigation of Russia’s interference, the appointment of John Durham — a seasoned, nonpartisan prosecutor — provided some reason to believe that it would be handled in a professional, nonpartisan manner,” Laufman said. “But if the attorney general is essentially running this investigation, that entire premise is out the window.”
Barr, you are the literal worst.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |They dislike Biden and Warren's plans because they see them as ineffective and wasterful. Not because they think that they're evil.
Nothing in the post you quoted implied that they're disloyal, and it most certainly didn't suggest they were evil.
Their characterizing of Biden's supporters were perfectly accurate, desiring a return to a idealized prior status-quo is incorrect but it's not wretched. It's not that they're bad people, just that their perception is critically flawed.
And because they're flawed instead of repugnant they can be courted by Warren or Sanders or other actually good candidates.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThey dislike Biden and Warren's plans because they see them as ineffective and wasterful. Not because they think that they're evil.
Among the different voting blocs that 538 identified as the key voting blocs of the 2020 primary
, Biden’s best performance by far is with what 538 terms “Party Loyalists”, who are GENERALLY described thusly:
What they value in a candidate: These voters are capital-D Democrats who care about the fate of the Democratic Party and generally go along with what party elites want. They tend to trust established brands, although they also care a lot about electability.
Ideological preferences: On economic policy, Party Loyalists can span a reasonably wide range, but they’re certainly more liberal than left — that is, while they may favor substantial changes to the system, they don’t want to completely remake the American economy. With that said, the Democratic Party’s platform has shifted to the left overall, and Party Loyalists aren’t the type to buck the consensus on, say, a higher minimum wage. On social and cultural issues, Party Loyalists hold conventionally liberal attitudes, being strong supporters of abortion rights and gay marriage and gun control — but being older and mostly white, they sometimes regard the other groups as too radical on issues related to race.
Who they supported in recent Democratic primaries: Party Loyalists supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 and for the most part also supported Clinton in 2008, although with a fair number of defections to Barack Obama. But they’re usually on the winning side of the primaries; they supported John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000.
Now, as should be obvious, of course Biden is appealing to more than 1 group, he damn well couldn’t be the front runner without doing so.
Among the various groups he polls well with include older Americans, the “just vote the name I recognize” folks, the black base, whose top priority has been getting Trump out, (although that’s something of a marriage of convenience, as we’ve seen from Biden’s lead with black voters slowly being reduced) he draws from Midwestern and other centrists, and problem from some other subgroups like Hispanic Democrats, who have traditionally tended to be more conservative than many other Democrats.
And portions of all kinds of other subgroups within the Democratic party. Saying that Biden had strongest support from one particular subgroup, and that particular subgroup favored certain things, doesn’t mean it’s the only group Biden draws support from, or that is the only reasons they favor him, although I think the “lets just get the country back to normal like it was” motivation is stronger than some may like to admit.
Now, is that cleared up to both of your satisfactions?
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Kaz you said this.
"Biden's voters are among the most loyal Democrats that I have met. They're angry at Biden and Warren for what they perceive as petty infighting when the goal is to defeat Trump as soon as possible.
They dislike Biden and Warren's plans because they see them as ineffective and wasterful. Not because they think that they're evil."
I've seen at least one facebook friend say that if Bernie wins she'll sit out of the election as a fuck you since "progressives don't deserve it" (she also blamed progressives for every republican victory 68 80 88 2000 and 2016.) Also, those same guys who hate Sanders and Warren are backing plans that actively destroy the planet or try to make common ground with people who would cheerfully herd POC Non christians and LGBT into gas chambers and rape the planet.
I mean good fucking god Pelosi admitted that with one incumbent democrat (who's voted for trump 70% of the time) she would have endorsed the guy even if it WEREN'T her policy to support incumbents. I find it telling that she only agreed to impeachment hearings when Trump went after Biden (if it had been Warren or Sanders she'd have not given a shit)
And no wanting to go back to something that never existed can be dangerous, since it gives the Republicans more ground to do more damage (If Obama had put his foot down more and filled judgeships he could have done far more. If he had put his foot down more in the early 2 years maybe he could have also gotten a few more accomplishments.)
As for ![]()
![]()
![]()
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0
Centrist dems aren't as bad as republicans but if Republicans are a 12 out of 10 on the "callous and evil scale" Establishment dems are a 7 out of 10. Even back in the 90s Biden helped get Clarence Thomas elected, Bill knifed gay rights in the back with DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell, and Chuck Schumer basically stated that palestinians are subhuman orcs and that college kids who don't drink the pro israel koolaid are stupid. Quite frankly the old guard needs to fuck off and die
Edited by LordYAM on Sep 30th 2019 at 4:02:54 AM
Pelosi didn't change her tune in impeachment because Biden was targeted. She changed her tune in impeachment because Trump did something big, obviously illegal, and easy for John Q Public to grasp why it's obviously illegal. That it targeted Biden is beside the point. It could have targeted Warren or Sanders and there result result would have been the same.
Personally I doubt that. She's been pretty open that she dislikes both Warren and Sander's policies, and she endorsed a guy who literally votes with trump 70% of the time AND got an A grade from the NRA (and said she'd have done so even if endorsing incumbents WASN'T her policy).
So....yeah. Forgive me if I don't buy that line of reasoning
So....yeah. Forgive me if I don't buy that line of reasoning
Pretty much all of this needs [CITATION NEEDED].
And I absolutely buy their reasoning, why do you think that Moderate Democrats from red-leaning or purple districts suddenly came out in favor of impeachment? Because they recognized that Trump had not just crossed a line but he had done it in an obvious way.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yanghttps://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2019/09/30/day-984/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-schiff-idUSKBN1WF1B4
2/ The House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Rudy Giuliani for Ukraine-related documents as part of their impeachment inquiry. In a letter to Giuliani, the heads of three House committees asked for information going back to January 2017 related to efforts to get Ukraine's government to investigate the Biden family, noting "a growing public record" of information appearing "to have pressed the Ukrainian government to pursue two politically-motivated investigations." House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, and House Committee on Oversight and Reform Chairman Elijah Cummings also said they are investigating "credible allegations" that Giuliani "acted as an agent of the president in a scheme to advance his personal political interests by abusing the power of the office of the president." The chairmen gave Giuliani until Oct. 15th to comply. (New York Times / Washington Post / NBC News / CNBC)
3/ Attorney General William Barr privately met overseas with foreign intelligence officials seeking help in a Justice Department investigation that Trump hopes will discredit U.S. intelligence related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. Barr previously met with British intelligence officials, and last week traveled to Italy to ask the Italians to assist John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, who is tasked with reviewing CIA and FBI activities in 2016. It was not Barr's first trip to Italy to meet intelligence officials. (Washington Post)
4/ Trump pressured Australia's prime minister to help Barr gather information for a Justice Department investigation into the origins of the Mueller investigation. Trump initiated the discussion – with Barr's knowledge and at his suggestion – in recent weeks with Prime Minister Scott Morrison explicitly for the purpose of requesting Australia's help in the Justice Department review that Trump believes will show that the Mueller investigation had corrupt and partisan origins. Similar to the call with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, the discussion with Morrison shows Trump using high-level diplomacy to advance his personal political interests. The White House restricted access of the transcript to a small group of Trump's aides. (New York Times / CNN / NBC News / ABC News / Associated Press)
https://apnews.com/7246ca01d5fc4444b0cc8ad65006c390
5/ The White House restricted access to Trump's calls with Putin and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. With Putin, access to the transcript of at least one of Trump's conversations were restricted, though it's not clear if aides placed the Russian phone calls in the same highly secured electronic system that held the phone call with Ukraine's president. There were no transcripts made of the phone conversations between Trump and the Saudi king or crown prince, which came as the White House was confronting the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The CIA concluded that bin Salman personally ordered Khashoggi's assassination. (CNN / Wall Street Journal)
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics/white-house-restricted-trump-calls-putin-saudi/index.html
6/ The attorney for the intelligence community whistleblower said he has "serious concerns" that Trump's comments could put his client "in harm's way." On Sunday, Trump claimed that he "deserves to meet my accuser," who he referred to as a "so-called 'Whistleblower'" that had "represented a perfect conversation with a foreign leader in a totally inaccurate and fraudulent way." And, earlier today, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that "we're trying to find out" the identity of the whistleblower. In a letter to Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower's lead attorney, said Trump's call for "the person who gave the whistleblower the information" to be publicly identified "have heightened our concerns that our client's identity will be disclosed publicly and that, as a result, our client will be put in harm's way." Bakaj also wrote that "certain individuals" had issued a $50,000 bounty for anyone with information relating to the whistleblower's identity. (NBC News / New York Times / Axios / CNN / USA Today / Axios)
7/ Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was among the administration officials who listened in on the July 25th phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Pompeo said that he hadn't yet read the whistleblower's complaint, but claimed that actions by State Department officials had been "entirely appropriate and consistent" with the Trump's administration efforts to improve relations with Ukraine. Three House committees subpoenaed Pompeo on Friday for documents related to the inquiry. (Wall Street Journal)
Zelensky said Kiev was unlikely to publish its version of a transcript from the July 25th with Trump. The White House published its summary of the call last week, but Zelensky said he felt it would be wrong to share the Ukrainian summary or transcript of the call. "There are certain nuances and things which I think it would be incorrect, even, to publish," Zelensky said. When asked whether Kiev would open an investigation into the claims against Biden and his son, Zelensky said Ukraine would not act solely at the behest of other nations. "We can’t be commanded to do anything," he said. "We are an independent country." (Reuters)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-zelenskiy-idUSKBN1WF152
8/ Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he wasn't concerned about Moscow's interference in the 2016 election, because the U.S. did the same in other countries. A memorandum summarizing the meeting was limited to select officials with the highest security clearances in an attempt to keep Trump's comments from being disclosed publicly. (Washington Post)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-kremlin-idUSKBN1WF1ET
📌 Day 111: Trump met with Putin’s top diplomats at the White House. The talks came one day after Trump fired the FBI Director, who was overseeing an investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. Sergey Lavrov met with Rex Tillerson earlier in the day and sarcastically acknowledged the dismissal of James Comey by saying "Was he fired? You're kidding. You're kidding." The Kremlin said Trump's firing of Comey will have no effect on bilateral relations between the two countries. Trump also met with Sergey Kislyak, a key figure in the Flynn investigation. (Associated Press / Reuters / Washington Post / NPR)
9/ The State Department's special envoy to Ukraine resigned. Kurt Volker tendered his resignation to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday – hours after three House committees announced that he was among the State Department officials who would be compelled to testify. The committees are expected to examine Volker's role in facilitating contacts between Rudy Giuliani and Ukrainian officials on Trump's behalf this past summer. The unidentified intelligence official who filed the whistleblower complaint that brought the president’s actions to light identified Volker as one of the officials trying to “contain the damage” by advising Ukrainians how to navigate Mr. Giuliani’s campaign. The whistleblower also said Volker was one of the officials trying to "contain the damage" to U.S. national security from Giuliani's foreign policy efforts. Volker plans to appear at his deposition next Thursday in front of the Intelligence, Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs committees. (The State Press / New York Times / Washington Post / Politico / CNN)
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/28/trump-ukraine-kurt-volker-1517874
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/28/politics/mick-mulvaney-impeachment-inquiry-donald-trump/index.html
10/ Mitch Mc Connell said the Senate would have "no choice" but to put Trump on trial and vote on removing him from office if the House votes to pass articles of impeachment, addressing doubts he may circumvent Senate procedures. The Republican-held Senate, however, is unlikely to vote to convict Trump and remove him from office. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to try the president if he is impeached by the House, but it does not set a timetable for the process. (CNBC / Axios / Wall Street Journal / Yahoo News / Reuters)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-mcconnell-idUSKBN1WF1VW
poll/ 55% of Americans approve of the impeachment inquiry into Trump, while 45% disapprove. 87% of Democrats approve of the inquiry, while 23% of Republicans feel the same. (CBS News)
poll/ 47% of voters think Trump should be impeached and removed from office, while 47% disagree. (Quinnipiac)
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3642
poll/ 47% of Americans support impeaching Trump and removing him from office, while 45% disagree. (CNN)
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics/cnn-poll-impeachment-ukraine/index.html
I want to note for the record that I've been one of the most vocal critics of Pelosi since early 2019, and I'm totally satisfied with what she's doing now. Of course, I was also one of her most vocal defenders in 2017 and 2018, so take that as you will.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Sep 30th 2019 at 5:58:58 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub."[CITATION NEEDED]."
YAM is probably talking about Collin Peterson of Minnesota, who really is a very conservative Blue Dog. He's voted with Trump 50% of the time, the 70% number is outdated.
His district is wildly pro Trump and he's been winning by narrower and narrower margins each cycle. Pretty much every article I read said the district will go Republican as soon as he leaves and he might not even survive 2020.
Ironically, he endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2016 and then didn't vote for Clinton in the general, so there's plenty of reasons to dislike him from progressives and leftists alike.
@Physical: I think most of us are in agreement about why Pelosi is doing what she's doing. Lord YAM is the only dissenter here, and it speaks to his levels of cynicism that he only believes she's doing this because he thinks she's friends with Biden.
Huge citation needed for any supposed animosity between her and Warren/Sanders.
I don't know any non paywall sources but do have this:
Trump Pressed Australian Leader to Help Barr Investigate Mueller Inquiry’s Origins
The discussion was another instance of the president using American diplomacy for potential personal gain.
The "best" part of this new attempt with Australia is that it fits in so well with the ongoing Ukraine extortion attempt. Something we've often complained about before is that Trump hops from scandal to scandal so fast it's hard for people to learn and get angry over any one thing. These are coming off like pieces of a shared puzzle so they just rile up people more.
And Nope. Was talking about texas.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d925245e4b0019647acff0d/amp
The guy in question is anti choice and pro nra.
And no I don’t think Pelosi is a good politician and I do believe that it’s only because Biden was a target. She’d have done nothing if it was Sanders
And I said she disliked their policies. She ridiculed the green new deal for instance, while other centrists are fine with taking oil money
Edited by LordYAM on Sep 30th 2019 at 5:45:53 AM
Just wanted to address this from the previous page:
While this isn't untrue, the wording makes it sound like this is a choice. For many, it is not.
Unlike, say, the average pensioner or middle class middle aged person, most young people in the US simply do not have the option of blowing off work or school to go vote. Especially not for college students living on a campus, since many large colleges have hour long lines at the polling stations on campus on election day and so getting in line to vote can mean having to skip several or even all classes on election day.
Then there's the fact that voter registration as a college student, especially one who attends a college out of state, can be confusing or even outright hostile. Sates can vary on whether a student living on a college campus is a resident of their college's state (and therefore allowed to vote there) or still legally a resident only of their home state, while other states do not count college students living out-of-state as legal residents of their state. Which means there's a venn diagram of students who aren't considered legal residents of both the state they attend college in nor the state they moved from to attend college... These students cannot register to vote, because neither state will let them.
Moreover several red states with strict Voter ID laws, for instance, have both a 30 day deadline (i.e. voters have to register earlier than 30 days before the election) and a requirement that anyone who wants to present their out-of-state ID at the polling office have registered less than 60 or 90 days before the election...
Which puts the window for registering to vote between 1 or 2 months before the election, no later, but also no earlier... Which 'happens' to put that window right in the middle of the start of college, the busiest, most hectic time for first year students who've just moved to a different state to attend school or later year students who've just moved off-campus. This is by design, because the state Republicans who drafted this legislation know that college students are very much not part of their base.
And then there's just the mere fact that registering to vote for the first time can be daunting and confusing and many young people who are just starting college or are working minimum wage starting jobs after graduating high school simply don't have the time and energy to dive into that in addition to all the other shit they need to do.
That's a big part of why I'm happy the Netherlands has no registration to vote (if you're old enough and a citizen, you're automatically a 'registered' voter).
Angry gets shit done.

I'm seeing a Reuters notification that Congress is subpoenaing Giuliani for Ukraine documents.
Edited by sgamer82 on Sep 30th 2019 at 2:12:28 AM