TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

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

archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#236201: Mar 22nd 2018 at 7:50:55 PM

War with Iran seems more likely than war with NK but it would still be a hard sell. Mattis doesn't like Iran but with the current situation in the ME he's toned down his attitude towards them. Given how severely our positions in Northern Iraq and Syria would be compromised, and our dependency on the Strait of Hormuz, I can't see that one happening either unless the geopolitical situation in the ME changes significantly again.

They should have sent a poet.
TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#236202: Mar 22nd 2018 at 7:51:39 PM

Reposting the bit about the possible budget deal, because it got kind of lost in other discussion and I think it's worth a look to know how a shutdown may be averted and policies might change. Full repost:

Congress may avoid a shutdown with a $1.3 trillion omnibus budget bill that has conservatives fuming and attacking it. The bill will need to withstand resistance from the most right wing Republicans, and some resistance from some Democrats. The x-factor is whether Trump will get out his veto pen, especially since it takes away virtually all increases in border/wall funding. It does nothing regarding DACA and certain other priorities for Democrats, however.

    From this article, Democrats look to have gotten the better of this deal 
On Wednesday night, congressional leaders unveiled the “omni”: a massive 2,232-page, $1.3 trillion spending bill covering everything from defense to border security to opioids. In Congress, a spending bill spanning multiple budget areas is known as an “omnibus.”

If passed (which is expected, as both Republican and Democratic leaders support it), the legislation will keep the government open through September 30, giving us at least six months without a major budgetary showdown.

This particular omnibus is coming in the nick of time. If it fails to pass by the end of Friday night, the government will enter its third shutdown in two months. And some hurdles remain. While the Republican leadership originally scheduled release of the text for Monday night, it didn’t come for another two days, prompting consternation among some members of Congress.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who forced a brief shutdown in February to emphasize his opposition to increased federal spending, has promised to oppose the omnibus and won’t say if he’ll attempt to delay a vote and force a shutdown again.

The House Freedom Caucus, an influential subgroup of conservative members, has pledged opposition, as has the Heritage Foundation:

Link to Freedom Caucus' denouncement of the bill, since it couldn't be copied and pasted

The misgivings are bipartisan. House Democrats are reportedly threatening to not vote for the rule bringing the legislation to the floor; if they and House conservatives together defeat the rule, that would stop the underlying legislation in its tracks. Most likely, though, the legislation will pass, and a number of important changes in policy and funding levels for everything from immigration to gun research will take effect.

The whole point of omnibus legislation is that it’s kind of a cobbled-together mishmash of provisions and priorities. As Vox’s Tara Golshan notes, the bill resolves a number of serious disagreements present throughout the negotiation process for it:

  • Republicans wanted increased funding for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) interior enforcement (that is, of undocumented immigrants already here, not on the border) and an increase in the number of detention beds. The final deal included 328 additional CBP officers but required ICE to cut detention beds.

  • The White House, at the last minute, asked for $25 billion for a border wall, which was reduced to only $1.6 billion in the final deal.

  • While Democratic leaders have appeared willing to accept an omnibus that doesn’t revive the DACA program, other Democratic members of Congress have suggested they’d oppose any funding bill that doesn’t protect DACA. The final bill does nothing on DACA.

  • Both parties wanted to include provisions to stabilize Obamacare health insurance markets, which fell apart over disagreements about whether funding can go to plans that cover abortions, and over disagreements about whether the stabilization measures would hurt more than they help.

  • The White House wanted to strip $900 million in funding for the Gateway project, a $30 billion endeavor to add a new commuter rail tunnel between New Jersey and New York under the Hudson River. Ultimately, the $900 million wasn’t included, but hundreds of millions in unallocated funding that could wind up going to the project did make it in.

  • The omnibus includes a new law (the Fix NICS Act) that would increase enforcement of the federal law requiring state law enforcement agencies to report criminal records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), and give states more financial incentives to report records. It’s just about the most modest thing that Congress could do on guns, but it’s still sparked some conservative pushback; the Freedom Caucus wanted to pair it with a law requiring states to recognize each other’s concealed carry permits.

  • The bill also bars employers from taking their workers’ tips, holding back a push by Trump’s Labor Secretary Alex Acosta to allow restaurant owners to confiscate tips if they pay workers minimum wage or above.

  • The bill doesn’t defund “sanctuary cities” that attempt to protect unauthorized immigrant residents from federal immigration officials, despite Trump’s last-minute push to defund the cities as part of the omnibus.

  • Nor does the bill do anything to target Planned Parenthood, a common target of Republican ire.

Other issues that sparked less overt controversy are also addressed in the omnibus:

  • The National Institutes of Health get a $3 billion funding increase.

  • The Census Bureau will get another $1.34 billion, a Democratic priority.

  • The Community Development Block Grant program, a flexible federal funding program for cities and local governments, is being nearly doubled from $2.8 billion to $5.2 billion, despite Trump’s prior proposals to eliminate it.

  • TIGER, a grant program for transportation projects inaugurated by Obama’s stimulus, is seeing its budget tripled to $1.5 billion.

  • The bill includes the STOP School Violence Act of 2018, a measure to increase grants for security training, metal detectors, stronger locks, emergency notifications, and other provisions meant to improve school safety. It passed the House by an overwhelming bipartisan margin earlier this month.

  • For the first time ever, the Congressional Research Service (an indispensable nonpartisan agency producing invaluable reports on a wide variety of procedural and policy topics) will be required to post all of its reports online. Currently, only a subset are available to the public, mostly through third parties.

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
kkhohoho (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#236203: Mar 22nd 2018 at 7:51:46 PM

[up][up]Or if Trump wants a show.

edited 22nd Mar '18 7:52:00 PM by kkhohoho

BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#236204: Mar 22nd 2018 at 7:51:59 PM

So for the news, I was unaware that the ACLU has challenged New Hampshire for throwing out absentee ballots because a random official decided that someone's signature didn't match. Full article text 

Shortly before the 2016 election, Mary Saucedo sat down with her husband of 52 years, Gus, to fill out her absentee ballot. Mary, a resident of Manchester, New Hampshire, is currently 95 years old and legally blind. She has voted consistently since 1944. Federal and state law both permit Gus to help his wife cast her vote, but Mary wanted to sign the ballot herself, so he guided her hand to the affidavit and she affixed her signature. Gus mailed her ballot to the Manchester clerk’s office. She had every reason to believe her vote would be counted.

It wasn’t. On Election Day, a local official compared the signature on Mary’s ballot to the one on her absentee ballot affidavit, a document she’d signed to attest that her disability prevented her from voting in person. The official determined that the two signatures didn’t match and tossed out her ballot. There was no opportunity for appeal. Mary didn’t know she’d been disenfranchised until the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire informed her in 2017.

That election cycle, an estimated 275 New Hampshire voters suffered the same fate, losing their right to vote because an official with no expertise in handwriting analysis decided that two signatures didn’t match. In the 2012 election, as many as 370 voters in the state were disenfranchised through this scheme. It’s not clear that a single one of these voters knew what happened to their ballots—at least not until the ACLU of New Hampshire told them. The organization is now suing the state in federal court for flagrant violation of federal law and the U.S. Constitution. It will very likely win in a rout.

Why are so many New Hampshire voters disqualified on the basis of their handwriting? The answer to that question is oddly elusive. Voters’ signatures are analyzed by “moderators” at each polling place. The number of ballots rejected by moderators due to signature “mismatch” varies wildly from town to town. In 2016, all such rejected ballots came from just 26 percent of New Hampshire’s 318 polling places; the remaining 74 percent of polls rejected zero ballots for mismatch. It thus appears that a minority of overzealous moderators are responsible for this disenfranchisement.

These moderators’ analysis of ballot signatures is shockingly amateurish: They briefly compare the two names, decide whether they match, and either accept or reject the ballot based on their subjective determination. There are no objective standards to guide the process. Dr. Linton A. Mohammed, a forensic document examiner, testified to the ACLU that effective signature comparison—which is difficult even for experts—requires 10 signature samples “at a minimum” to account for variability. Moderators only have two: the signature on the affidavit requesting a ballot and the signature on the ballot itself. With this limited sample, Mohammed explained, any analyst—and especially one with no training—is “likely to erroneously conclude that two signatures from the same voter do not match.”

Voters are not informed directly when their ballots are rejected due to a signature mismatch. Instead, municipal clerks add their names to a website days or weeks after the election. Then, 90 days after the election, the information is scrubbed from the internet. The state does virtually nothing to educate voters about the existence of this site. Voters also have no way to resolve the issue; they are not allowed to prove their identities after the fact. Once a vote is discarded by a moderator, it’s lost forever.

Making matters worse, New Hampshire only allows residents to vote absentee if they have a legitimate impediment to voting at the polls, such as a disability. For this reason, a disproportionate number of absentee voters are disabled. The ACLU found that many of those whose votes were tossed out because of a supposed signature mismatch lived in assisted-living facilities, including a number of retired service members in veterans’ homes. Presumably, age and disability prevented them from affixing perfectly consistent signatures to their ballots. Sadly, a number of them died following the 2016 election. The last vote they cast was not counted.

In light of this problem, the New Hampshire Legislature recently adjusted its voting laws to clarify that disabled voters may receive help filling out their ballots so long as an assistant submits a statement declaring he helped out. Yet, even under this new law, a moderator can still reject the ballot for signature mismatch. And of course, individuals who cannot obtain effective assistance, or have no disability, are not helped by this tweak at all. The Secretary of State’s Office even acknowledged to the legislature that this putative fix does not “allay” the New Hampshire ACLU’s lawsuit.

That suit alleges, quite plausibly, that the state’s mismatch scheme is illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires states to enact voting procedures that grant equal access to disabled residents. It also claims that the scheme violates procedural due process under the 14th Amendment by depriving voters of any recourse to cure the loss of their vote. And it argues that New Hampshire infringes upon its residents’ fundamental right to vote as protected by the Equal Protection Clause. Any law that severely burdens the franchise, as this scheme clearly does for hundreds of voters each election, must survive strict scrutiny to pass constitutional muster. In this case, New Hampshire plainly cannot put forth a legitimate interest to justify its stringent mismatch rule aside from a generalized (and empirically unsupported) fear of voter fraud, which cannot satisfy heightened scrutiny.

No other state employs a scheme as draconian as New Hampshire’s, though some have tried. Judges have struck down mismatch laws in Florida, California, and Illinois that do not give voters notice or an opportunity for remedy. A federal judge found that Florida’s rule would’ve disqualified as many as 23,000 ballots in the 2016 election; the ACLU estimates that California’s disenfranchised 40,000 voters that same year. Plenty of other states also compare signatures, but they all provide notice and a chance to fix any purported mismatch. New Hampshire’s stringent rule seems to be singular.

The ACLU filed its first complaint in this case in May. Since then, the Republican-controlled legislature has had ample opportunity to fix the glaring legal infirmities in its mismatch scheme. Instead, legislators have forged ahead with voter suppression laws targeting lower-income residents and college students. So, on Monday, the ACLU filed for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in its favor without a trial. It hopes to win the case in time for the 2018 midterms so people like Mary Saucedo can ensure their votes are counted. Saucedo testified that she plans to cast an absentee ballot once again in the next election—as long as “I’m still here.”

And there's an editorial asking Biden not to run in 2020, due largely to his much-worse-than-I-knew history of involvement in "tough on crime" legislation dating back into the 1980s. Full article text 

Joe Biden’s allies say the former vice president hasn’t decided yet whether to run for president again in 2020. But we know the interest is there. “If, in a year from now, if we’re ready, and nobody has moved in that I think can do it, then I may very well do it,” said Biden on The View in December. Since then, the former vice president has recruited donors for his political action committee and made several stops on the campaign trail, including a recent triumph in Pennsylvania, where he stumped on behalf of Conor Lamb, the latest Democrat to win a special election in Trump country. He has lent his time to statehouse candidates in Florida and Nevada, and his staff is fielding surrogate requests from candidates across the country, in every conceivable kind of race. On Thursday, Biden laid out his three-part vision for the country, “A Plan to Put Work—and Workers—First,” which calls for commitments to job training, fair pay, and government support for middle-class families.

If all that wasn’t enough, Biden has also been pushing the narrative that he would have won last time around. “Although it would have been a very difficult primary, I think I could have won,” he said during a lecture at Colgate University in New York, where he explained his decision not run. He was grieving. “At the end of the day, I just couldn’t do it. So I don’t regret not running. Do I regret not being president? Yes.” Biden is older than most of the party’s rumored contenders—he’ll be 78 on Inauguration Day 2021—but none of them can match his stature as a former vice president and a friend of the most popular Democrat in the country, Barack Obama. He even tops early polls of potential candidates. Biden was a long-shot candidate in 2008 and derailed his own campaign in 1987. This is his last chance, yes, but is it also his moment?

The short answer is no. Choosing Biden smacks of the same thinking that put John Kerry on the ticket against George W. Bush. Back then it was a decorated veteran to challenge a wartime president; now it’s a white working-class fighter to combat a president who fancies himself the same.

Biden seems to think this is his angle, answering the president’s schoolyard taunting with a boast of his own. “A guy who ended up becoming our national leader said, ‘I can grab a woman anywhere, and she likes it,’ ” said the former vice president during a speech at the University of Miami on Tuesday. “They asked me if I’d like to debate this gentleman, and I said, ‘No.’ I said, ‘If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.’ ” The president, of course, relishes this kind of fight. “Crazy Joe Biden is trying to act like a tough guy,” said Trump on Twitter. “Actually, he is weak, both mentally and physically, and yet he threatens me, for the second time, with physical assault. He doesn’t know me, but he would go down fast and hard, crying all the way. Don’t threaten people Joe!”

The real problem with Biden’s challenge, though, is his record. Before his reinvention as an avuncular and friendly foil to the stoic Obama, Biden was known as a centrist Democrat with an active role in the Reagan-era turn against both New Deal liberalism and “identity politics,” part of a larger effort to recapture those white working-class voters who left Democrats for a previous celebrity cum politician who both stoked and harnessed white racial resentment.

To that end, Biden was a drug warrior and incarceration hawk, representing the concerns of his suburban Delaware constituency. In 1984, he worked with Sens. Ted Kennedy and Strom Thurmond to produce a bill—the Sentencing Reform Act—which abolished parole for most federal crimes and toughened sentencing guidelines for a variety of offenses. In 1986, Biden co-sponsored the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which created new mandatory minimum sentences for drugs, including the crack-versus-cocaine sentencing disparity. He helped craft the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which strengthened mandatory minimums for drug possession, enhanced penalties for people who transport drugs, and established the Office of National Drug Control Policy, whose director was christened “drug czar” by Biden himself.

In 1991, Biden introduced a bill that established 51 death-eligible federal crimes in an effort to outdo a similarly punitive Republican proposal from President George H.W. Bush and Sen. Thurmond. Touting his proposal, Biden bragged that “the Biden crime bill before us calls for the death penalty for 51 offenses. A wag in the newspaper recently wrote something to the effect that Biden has made it a death penalty offense for everything but jaywalking.” Under President Bill Clinton, he played a major role in crafting the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. As recently as 2008, Biden praised and touted that law—even those elements that rewarded states for building more prisons.

Yes, the history behind mass incarceration is complicated. Crime was at epidemic levels and politicians, black as well as white, responded with punitive policies. And in the present, Biden has embraced criminal justice reform, joining most Democrats in the turn against tough-on-crime policies. Still, his record will demand a better explanation should he make another run for the Democratic nomination.

It’s not just Biden’s record on criminal justice that is out of step with much of the Democratic base. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden ushered Clarence Thomas to a seat on the Supreme Court, despite credible accusations of sexual harassment. He did little to stop attacks on Thomas’ accuser, Anita Hill, and he refused to call witnesses who would have echoed Hill’s charges of abuse. Biden now says he owes Hill an apology for his inaction—“my one regret is that I wasn’t able to tone down the attacks on her by some of my Republican friends”—but given the new salience of sexual harassment and assault in American culture, that may be too little, too late.

Democrats will field a football team’s worth of candidates in 2020, from high-profile names like Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and (possibly) Bernie Sanders to rising stars like Julián Castro and unexpected contenders like Eric Holder (currently playing coy at a run) and New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, along with outsider candidates like liberal billionaire Tom Steyer.

Joe Biden has as good a chance as anyone of emerging from this crowded field. If Donald Trump can become president, then a well-liked former vice president with a controversial past can do the same. But it will be hard. Given the shape of the Democratic electorate—with its growing share of liberal voters—Biden would do well to consider whether his reputation as a beloved party elder would survive another run.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#236205: Mar 22nd 2018 at 7:52:25 PM

[up][up][up]Who wants to bet that people will still complain that the Democratic Party "caved"?

[up]Concerning the signature thing...not sure if that's malice, incompetence, or both.

As for Biden...yeah, I'm hoping we get someone better in 2020. But if he really ends up being the best we've got I'll still vote for him.

edited 22nd Mar '18 7:55:55 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#236206: Mar 22nd 2018 at 7:56:57 PM

[up][up][up] The Joint Chiefs have been largely pro-Iran Deal and broadly in favor of allowing Iran freedom of movement in areas they previously didn't, so even if Trump wanted a war I can't see them being on board with it.

They should have sent a poet.
Imca (Veteran)
#236207: Mar 22nd 2018 at 7:58:58 PM

Not sure how I feel about arguing that over a 40 year old possition either, people change with time, 40 years is almost half a century, and more then most of the people in this thread have been alive, in some cases over twice as much.

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#236208: Mar 22nd 2018 at 8:03:47 PM

Apparently part of the spending bill is a mandate for the CDC to study gun violence - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/spending-bill-stipulate-cdc-study-gun-violence/story?id=53920156 - though it's unclear whether this constitutes a repeal of the Dickey Amendment or not.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
RedSavant Since: Jan, 2001
#236209: Mar 22nd 2018 at 8:09:33 PM

Isn't Russia loosely allied with Iran? That could be a bit more leverage against a war with Iran, since Trump wouldn't risk the disfavor of Putin.

It's been fun.
TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#236210: Mar 22nd 2018 at 8:13:35 PM

And there's an editorial asking Biden not to run in 2020, due largely to his much-worse-than-I-knew history of involvement in "tough on crime" legislation dating back into the 1980s.

Biden is in the crappy position that he would have been a solid choice for president around basically anywhere from 92-2004. (He did campaign for nomination in '88, but an overhyped scandal took him out and he developed some sudden health woes a few months after that which nearly killed him, and probably would have killed him if he'd tried to keep up the pace needed for a Presidential campaign.)

While he isn't a bad choice now, I think his window of opportunity has passed. By the time the election would come Biden would be about to turn 78 years old, to take over the most stressful and demanding job on Earth after the hash Trump and the Republicans will have almost certainly made of it. That's not a recipe for good things happening. And as charismatic and experienced as Biden is, he'll also be out of step with the changing times.

I hope Joe will continue to lend his help to the cause, but for President I think it's time to start letting a younger generation steer the ship. (Although I think it may be a loss for the Democrats that Biden didn't run in 2000 or 2004, I think he would have fared better than Gore or Kerry.)

Who wants to bet that people will still complain that the Democratic Party "caved"?

Are you kidding? No way in Hell I'm taking that bet, it's certain to lose money.

edited 22nd Mar '18 8:17:30 PM by TheWanderer

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#236211: Mar 22nd 2018 at 8:15:36 PM

As for Biden...yeah, I'm hoping we get someone better in 2020. But if he really ends up being the best we've got I'll still vote for him.
Oh absolutely. But I don't fault the author for looking at his record and wincing, either.
Not sure how I feel about arguing that over a 40 year old possition either, people change with time, 40 years is almost half a century, and more then most of the people in this thread have been alive, in some cases over twice as much.
He was still arguing in favor of the same kind of policies up to a few years ago while he was VP. So even if he's not as enthusiastic about it all, he hasn't repudiated the Law And Order™ stuff either.
Apparently part of the spending bill is a mandate for the CDC to study gun violence
About time. Has the NRA pre-emptively challenged it?

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#236212: Mar 22nd 2018 at 8:21:21 PM

He was still arguing in favor of the same kind of policies up to a few years ago while he was VP. So even if he's not as enthusiastic about it all, he hasn't repudiated the Law And Order™ stuff either.
Wait seriously? Do you have a link? I don't necessarily disbelieve you but I'm just shocked.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#236213: Mar 22nd 2018 at 8:24:27 PM

If the Dems can't find a decent frontrunner anyway, might be worth running Biden as President and relying on the VP pick.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#236214: Mar 22nd 2018 at 8:25:45 PM

[up] Part of me can't help but wonder if that was part of the Republicans' logic vis a vis Trump and Pence. That sours me to it, if so.

edited 22nd Mar '18 8:26:00 PM by sgamer82

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#236215: Mar 22nd 2018 at 8:27:46 PM

Except the Republicans had to hope they could control Trump, whilst Biden would presumably be involved in such a concoction.

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#236216: Mar 22nd 2018 at 8:30:25 PM

I doubt Biden will be the only serious choice, I like the guy but I would want someone else if possible. Like Booker, or Gillibrand, or Harris.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#236217: Mar 22nd 2018 at 8:31:57 PM

[up] I could see someone like Corey Booker maybe.

Thread on Guccifer 2.0

What the everlovin' F??? I can't even take ONE HOUR to LIVE and this happens? So let's get this straight. Guccifer was GRU. So ROGER STONE was communicating with A GRU OFFICER over Clinton/Podesta/DNC hacked emails. And said GRU officer spoke with Assange.

2. So THE MUELLER TEAM has taken over the investigation of Guccifer 2.0 and Mueller brought onto his team the FBI agents that were investigating the matter.

3. The long story short is, Guccifer made a mistake and Mueller & co. nailed him (as in with evidence) for being GRU. Now we all suspected he could actually be Russian intelligence, it's been widely said publicly. But EVIDENCE? Is different.

4. The first direct implication of this is that Roger Stone, Trump adviser and friend, was communicating with GRU and DEFENDED said GRU agent all the while discussing Clinton/Podesta/DNC hacked emails AND bragging about them.

5. The above means an indictment for Stone is basically certain, and prison awaits. On top of that, seen as Stone was a Trump surrogate and advisor, this DIRECTLY ties the Trump campaign to the Kremlin.

6. Now obviously this is exactly what's called "collusion" and Stone willfully and directly engaged in it. Whether he KNEW the dude was GRU and pretended not to know, or whether he DID NOT know makes no difference. The crime remains.

7. Stone would be liable even if this dude was the "Romanian lone hacker" he pretended to be. Hacking is a crime and trafficking in hacked docs to try and gain political advantage makes it worse. the fact Guccifer was GRU just makes Stone's position worse.

8. Now I get why Nunberg was worried. He had good reason to be. Now how they caught him is hilarious. Guccifer FORGOT TO ACTIVATE HIS VPN before logging on one time. Sloppy. And busted for being in MOSCOW at the agency’s headquarters on Grizodubovoy Street . Amazing.

9. LOL moment "Guccifer did not respond to a direct message on twitter." So the Daily Beast D Md Guccifer. That's some good work, to gain that trust so that the GRU follows (Now delete that account before you're spied on).

10. Back to the matter at hand, investigators may have at this point, also direct evidence that ASSANGE was in cahoots with the GRU, considering how Guccifer teased the material and then Wikileaks released it.

edited 22nd Mar '18 8:32:16 PM by megaeliz

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#236218: Mar 22nd 2018 at 8:33:15 PM

[up] I guess everyone who was suspicious of Assange and Wikileaks from the start is feeling pretty vindicated right now.

Disgusted, but not surprised
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#236219: Mar 22nd 2018 at 8:33:38 PM

[up][up] I highly doubt that the VPN thing was an accident.

edited 22nd Mar '18 8:33:46 PM by archonspeaks

They should have sent a poet.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#236220: Mar 22nd 2018 at 8:35:07 PM

[up]I have no problem believing it. Even professionals get sloppy sometimes.

Disgusted, but not surprised
TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#236221: Mar 22nd 2018 at 8:38:01 PM

Here's another reason Republicans are worried about midterm elections: the "lazy campaigners" on their side.

Long story somewhat shorter version, Republican leadership fears that they have a lot of members who are complacent after being elected in safe districts either without ever having faced a real challenge, or at least without having done so for years. Now the worry is that enthusiastic Democrat challengers who are raising/spending big bucks and newly energized voters may catch these "safe district" Republicans by surprise and result in losses that Republicans shouldn't suffer even in the biggest blue wave.

    I bet Republican leadership is pulling their hair out at night 
On paper, Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) appears to be a shoo-in for reelection. He‘s served nine terms in what’s been a GOP stronghold for decades, hasn’t had a serious challenger in years and sits on one of the most powerful committees in Congress.

But Culberson‘s suburban-Houston district went for Hillary Clinton by 1 percentage point in 2016. And when GOP leaders found out last year that he was being outraised by Democrats and barely had a campaign staff, they were exasperated.

Get your act together, they warned Culberson in so many words, according to sources familiar with the dressing-down.

Culberson’s slow start to his reelection campaign is what GOP leaders fear most heading into the thick of the midterm elections: incumbents who haven’t seen a real race in years snoozing as a Democratic wave builds. Speaker Paul Ryan and the National Republican Congressional Committee are less concerned about their battle-tested swing-district members — who face tough races every election cycle — and more worried about complacent Republicans not prepared for a fight.

“This is a very tough environment for Republicans. If you’re getting outraised or if you haven’t started your campaign yet, you need to be scared and start today,” said Corry Bliss, executive director of the Ryan-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund. “Saying ‘I’ve never lost before, therefore I can never lose this time’ is not a campaign plan.”

It’s one of the reasons Ryan’s political team and NRCC officials have started holding a series of meetings with lawmakers from traditionally reliable GOP districts. Their message: Get ready for a roller coaster and begin your campaign in earnest now.

It’s too early to tell whether leadership’s message is registering. More than 40 GOP incumbents were outraised by Democratic challengers during the last three months of 2017, a staggering number that senior Republicans said is unacceptable and amounts to nothing short of laziness.

But GOP leaders aren’t satisfied there won’t be more John Micas. The iconic former Transportation Committee chairman literally laughed at the notion that his Democratic challenger in 2016, Stephanie Murphy, would beat him — until it was too late.

Republicans blamed the loss on his blasé approach.

Other lawmakers in swing districts have been through this before. They don’t need to be warned about taking victory for granted.

"I’ve had three very tough races in a row, been a top target for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and so I think I’m well defined to the electorate," said Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), who represents a tossup suburban Denver district. But for any Republican from a safer district who "hasn't had a fight," he continued, "it could be turned into a competitive situation."

“Many of our members have not been in Congress during a possible ‘wave’ election cycle, as happened in 2006 and 2010,” added a Republican campaign staffer. “Members in Republican-leaning districts should heed the warnings from House leadership and get ready for a fight.”

Rep. Glenn Grothman’s team is another office that’s received a talking-to. Ryan is personally helping campaign for the Wisconsin Republican, who hasn’t had a competitive race since he was elected in 2014. His sprawling district partly abutting Lake Michigan has been a Republican stronghold since the 1960s. But Grothman now faces a wealthy Democratic challenger who’s planning to spend hundreds of thousands of his own money on the race.

Grothman acknowledged in an interview the battle he’s in for and said he's doing "100 percent" what he can to prepare. The 62-year-old former attorney pulled up his schedule on his phone and read a list of constituent events: a fish fry, a bowl-a-thon, some St. Patrick’s Day parades and Lincoln Day dinners.

It’s too early to tell whether leadership’s message is registering. More than 40 GOP incumbents were outraised by Democratic challengers during the last three months of 2017, a staggering number that senior Republicans said is unacceptable and amounts to nothing short of laziness.

“Obviously, that’s a bigger problem than the typical year,” Grothman said of his Democratic challenger, Dan Kohl, the nephew of former Milwaukee Bucks owner and ex-Sen. Herb Kohl. “I’ll raise more money, I think, because there’s more a necessity. … My opponent has a lot of money, and he’s telling people he’s going to spend a lot of money … so it’s concerning.”

Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-N.C.) also hails from a solid Republican district but is facing a well-funded Democratic opponent who last quarter raked in over $100,000 more than the incumbent. His staff, like Grothman’s, has been warned to be ready — particularly because Pittenger is still introducing himself to constituents after a recent redistricting changed his district’s borders.

Another North Carolinian on GOP leaders’ radar is freshman Rep. Ted Budd. His well-connected Democratic opponent, philanthropist Kathy Manning, raised $564,000 last quarter, compared to his $183,000 haul.

Budd said he realizes “the environment is tough this year,” and he just hired a campaign manager who will start next month.

Ryan’s political executive director, Kevin Seifert, and deputy executive director, Jake Kastan, are handling many of the reality-check meetings with incumbent Republicans or their staffs. While Ryan’s team often helps incumbents, it's hosting more meetings than usual, and with a greater sense of urgency.

Ryan and NRCC Chairman Steve Stivers (R-Ohio) have also delivered the same message to lawmakers in conference gatherings in recent weeks: Raise money now, be active in your districts, find legislative issues that resonate with constituents and tout your accomplishments constantly. Also, define yourself and your opponent early, and label Democrats as obstructionists.

“When you have a million dollars spent attacking [GOP lawmakers] for the first time, a lot can change, and quickly,” Bliss said.

The warnings from leadership aides are also expected to extend to a handful of Freedom Caucus members who typically feel safe enough to vote with the far right of the House Republican Conference — if they haven't already. Three Democratic opponents of caucus member Rep. Tom Garrett (R-Va.) outraised him in the last fundraising quarter, two of them by $100,000.

Garrett's district elected a Democrat to the House in 2008, before a Republican reclaimed the seat two years later. And Garrett’s conservative votes could make him more susceptible in a Democratic wave year, senior Republicans said.

Ditto, they said, for Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), another Freedom Caucus member, who upset former Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a 2014 primary.

Brat declined to discuss his campaign with POLITICO; two Democratic opponents collected more than him in the final three months of 2017 — including one by nearly $150,000.

edited 22nd Mar '18 8:45:18 PM by TheWanderer

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#236222: Mar 22nd 2018 at 8:38:09 PM

According to programmer friend on twitter, unless you reconfigure your router to force it to go through the VNP every time, you have to remember to turn it on every time you use it.

archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#236223: Mar 22nd 2018 at 8:38:32 PM

M84: True, but in this case it reeks of tradecraft. The whole goal is to sow chaos and doubt, and from what can be seen the incident with the VPN occurred directly after Stone was in the news saying Guccifer wasn't a Russian. I'd be willing to bet they dropped that one on purpose, the same way they "accidentally" revealed the ties between left wing groups and the Kremlin during the Cold War.

A lot of talk has been done about "dezinformatsiya", but let's not forget that's just one plank of Maskirovka. This would fall under "demonstrativnyye manevry" or "imitatsiya".

edited 22nd Mar '18 8:41:03 PM by archonspeaks

They should have sent a poet.
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#236224: Mar 22nd 2018 at 8:41:01 PM

[up] Either way, it's now part of the Mueller investigation, and was already being investigated before that.

edited 22nd Mar '18 8:41:58 PM by megaeliz

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#236225: Mar 22nd 2018 at 8:41:33 PM

Problem with that is that all this does is hurt their useful idiots in the US.

When the Democrats win we're coming for Putin's head. They know this.

Oh really when?

Total posts: 417,856
Top