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
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.
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.
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
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
![]()
![]()
Who wants to bet that people will still complain that the Democratic Party "caved"?
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 surprisedApparently 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.
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.)
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...◊ |
I could see someone like Corey Booker maybe.
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
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.
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...◊ |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.

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.