B) Very defensive about how the Russia issue. Putin is a truth-teller... but not so much the US intelligence community, of course. I can't imagine why he would think that kind of thing...
So, there's a lot I could discuss right now, but here's the most important question:
Has the Republican Party gone too fast, again, and dumped too much random stuff into a bill, again, that they will actually manage to fail to pass what should be the easiest thing in the world for that party to pass, a giant tax cut for the rich? By again using reconciliation they one again irritate John McCain, first. They did this because Democrats would not support anything remotely like the kind of bill they want, and maybe he'll end up voting for it, but given how health care went it is dangerous. And then by tossing Obamacare mandate repeal into the bill they must also threaten Collins and Murkowski's votes, yes? Again, neither is opposed yet and they could vote for it because I mean it's mostly a massive tax cut for the rich and what Republican actually opposes such an awesome idea? Never mind that many lower and middle class people w/ill get tax hikes, trickle-down economics will work this time, really! (It won't.) ... Oh, and by making it a bill that adds a lot of money to the deficit, they threaten a few other votes too, if any of them (Corker?) are actually serious about that and not just lying for political reasons as usual.
So, that's the big, high-stakes question: will this bill pass the Senate? It's close and could go either way right now. I thought all along that these Republican passing health care reform was unlikely, but at the same time I thought that they could get a tax cut through. That is still very possible, but this Republican congress is still unbelievably incompetent, so maybe we will be saved form this horrendous bill... we'll see.
We all had a fun time gloating about Roy Moore, then just like that, BAM, Al Franken disappoints us all. He's admitted it straight up, and that photo of him groping that woman you can find easily online is just sickening.
Not that this has ever really been a secret, but we've got a serious problem here. And yes, Bill Clinton is a rapist if we are consistent with our standards of evidence here (multiple women accusing him). Republicans keep bringing him up as some "whataboutism" when we criticize Trump, but I don't get that. We're decrying him too, it doesn't excuse Trump's terribleness.
The democratic party can really get the moral victory here if they are willing to bite that bullet and once and for all denounce any of their own members, even their very most popular ones, that are now being exposed for being utter creeps. Bill Clinton and Al Franken have both done a lot of good, but you know what? There's so very many more people out there that are just as willing and able to do just as much good WITHOUT being sexual abusers.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:We all had a fun time gloating about Roy Moore, then just like that, BAM, Al Franken disappoints us all. He's admitted it straight up, and that photo of him groping that woman you can find easily online is just sickening.
That is disappointing, yes. If the photo really shows him (pretend?)-groping her while she was asleep, yeah, it's horrible and there is no defense for such an unfunny "joke", particularly in the context of the creepy behavior she discussed earlier. If it's a staged photo then it's "only" not funny, creepy, and in incredibly bad taste.
It does not absolve him of guilt, but at least Franken admits what he did though, unlike Roy Moore or Donald Trump...
And on that note, to nobody's surprise Trump is not going to try to force Moore out of the race. Here's hoping that this helps gift us a miracle Senate seat in one of the redder states in the country, it may be unlikely but it's possible! Polling right now is looking good for the Democrat, though there is still a while to go before the election.
Quote:Not that this has ever really been a secret, but we've got a serious problem here. And yes, Bill Clinton is a rapist if we are consistent with our standards of evidence here (multiple women accusing him). Republicans keep bringing him up as some "whataboutism" when we criticize Trump, but I don't get that. We're decrying him too, it doesn't excuse Trump's terribleness.
Yeah, it's "these men, from both parties, have all taken advantage of women". It's not an issue of party, not really.
Quote:The democratic party can really get the moral victory here if they are willing to bite that bullet and once and for all denounce any of their own members, even their very most popular ones, that are now being exposed for being utter creeps. Bill Clinton and Al Franken have both done a lot of good, but you know what? There's so very many more people out there that are just as willing and able to do just as much good WITHOUT being sexual abusers.
On the Clinton front, there have been several articles in the last few days on Vox and the NY Times about how we got it wrong in the '90s and Democrats should have believed more of Bill's accusers and pushed Clinton to resign (in favor of Al Gore). It's a very reasonable case, yes. On the one hand, the one definitely proven case, Monica Lewinsky, was a consensual relationship. However, there was also obviously a huge power gap between them, which Bill exploited to his benefit. And someone who did that once probably didn't only do it once, so some of the other accusers are probably telling the truth as well.
At the time, in high school, I remember thinking what many Democats did -- that it was wrong, but probably not something that he should have to resign over. It inevitably became a part of the huge Republican war against him, and that definitely colored judgements. In retrospect, yes, maybe he should have resigned, this kind of behavior only stops once people are actually punished for it, as might finally be happening now. It is a shame, though -- I mean, Bill Clinton is an amazing speaker. I've mentioned this before but I heard him speak once, in 2014 at a rally with President Obama for our Governor candidate that year, and I thought that as good as Obama's speech was, Bill's was better. Policy-wise Clinton was certainly often frustratingly centrist however, but he's a really good speaker... who took advantage of women and maybe should have resigned because of it.
(If the Paula Broadrick rape allegation was proven true he definitely should have resigned, of course.)
I just can't look at Clinton the same way after all that. When it was just "he was cheating on his wife", yes that's a betrayal, but it's not an assault, so I left that as his and her own personal business. This stuff keeps coming out, and frankly each party needs to take the time to clean house. That DOES mean distancing themselves from Bill. Note that in spite of what Trump has said, Hillary is certainly not to blame for this, unless it comes out that she knew about these assaults and was complicit in covering it all up.
As for Al and any excuse that it was "just a joke".
Look at that. The "joke" was "haha I'm molesting a woman in her sleep, look what I'm getting away with!".
Dark Jaguar Wrote:I just can't look at Clinton the same way after all that. When it was just "he was cheating on his wife", yes that's a betrayal, but it's not an assault, so I left that as his and her own personal business. This stuff keeps coming out, and frankly each party needs to take the time to clean house. That DOES mean distancing themselves from Bill. Note that in spite of what Trump has said, Hillary is certainly not to blame for this, unless it comes out that she knew about these assaults and was complicit in covering it all up.
The thing with Bill is that the 'assault' part isn't proven, only the 'consensual cheating' part. It would not surprise me at all if he did assault a woman sometime, given everything, but we don't know for sure that he did.
That said though, this NY Times op-ed that I referenced earlier is really good, read it if you haven't. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/opini...inton.html The article goes over many of the reasons why Bill's accusers were not believed in the '90s, and some of them are good reasons (see the Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones sections), but ultimately comes to the eponymous conclusion that "I Believe Juanita".
Quote:As for Al and any excuse that it was "just a joke".
Look at that. The "joke" was "haha I'm molesting a woman in her sleep, look what I'm getting away with!".
Yeah, it's a really, really bad, unfunny, and sexist joke.
It does bring up a question, though -- without jokes which insult people or groups, what do comics have left? I mean, for some years now some comics have been complaining about the new PC culture, and how that makes it harder to be funny. Those kinds of questionable, often insulting jokes are part of why I've never liked, or watched, stand-up, but without it you take away a big chunk of what comics like to make jokes about. I would say 'good, find something better to make jokes about then!' myself to that, though.
We know with the same certainty we know that Trump has assaulted women. Many have come forward claiming it. Personally, I have no reason to doubt them when they are claiming it in such numbers. Al Franken has one claim, but also a frickin' photograph and his own admission. In any case, Trump's supporters would claim HE is in the same "climate" and that it would be absurd to trust any random woman because of that. The cases really are identical. It's ok to admit to error. It's not ok to pretend these cases are different enough to warrent it, because what happens the next time a democratic president is under that scandel?
As for comics, frankly outside of the old guard like Seinfeld they've been doing good at making jokes. It's ok to make fun of a LOT of groups after all. Hate groups, mainly. Corrupt groups like republicans and the catholic church, certainly. Yourself? Well obviously. Heck it's even possible to do a funny rape joke, so long as the TARGET of that joke is the rapist, not the victim. It's why Louis CK got a pass all this time. He talked the talk, and his jokes about the horrible way women are treated are the sort that shine a spotlight on abuse. It just turns out he was a hypocrit (and again, he straight up admitted it, no room for doubt here).
Dark Jaguar Wrote:We know with the same certainty we know that Trump has assaulted women. Many have come forward claiming it. Personally, I have no reason to doubt them when they are claiming it in such numbers. Al Franken has one claim, but also a frickin' photograph and his own admission. In any case, Trump's supporters would claim HE is in the same "climate" and that it would be absurd to trust any random woman because of that. The cases really are identical. It's ok to admit to error. It's not ok to pretend these cases are different enough to warrent it, because what happens the next time a democratic president is under that scandel?
There are definite strong similarities between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump's behavior, yes, if that's what you mean here. Both have been accused by multiple women of harassment, and deny it... except for the one proven case, Bill's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but he only admitted that because definite proof of it was found.
But between them and Al Franken, based on what we know now there's a pretty large gap. Right now he has only one accuser, and while bad, what he's accused of doing is not nearly as bad as what Trump and Clinton are. If you're saying here that Franken is as bad as Bill Clinton or Donald Trump, based on what we know now I'd disagree. He also actually admited to it, which is much better than how most people have responded to claims like this. Still, he did something pretty bad and does need to pay for it. I'd be fine if he resigned, but at least he should not run for re-election next year. It'd be kind of a shame since he's been a good senator, but I'm sure Minnesota can find someone else good.
Quote:As for comics, frankly outside of the old guard like Seinfeld they've been doing good at making jokes. It's ok to make fun of a LOT of groups after all. Hate groups, mainly. Corrupt groups like republicans and the catholic church, certainly. Yourself? Well obviously. Heck it's even possible to do a funny rape joke, so long as the TARGET of that joke is the rapist, not the victim. It's why Louis CK got a pass all this time. He talked the talk, and his jokes about the horrible way women are treated are the sort that shine a spotlight on abuse. It just turns out he was a hypocrit (and again, he straight up admitted it, no room for doubt here).
I don't watch comics much at all so I can't say much here except that sure, I guess the groups you mentioned are still reasonable targets.
Oh there are PLENTY of reasonable targets, and that includes black comedians and their focus on a corrupt system they've been doing for decades. That's where all that stuff comes from.
I'm not going to sit here and say Al Franken is "as bad" as the others. Competing for "worst person" is not exactly a fun game to play after all.
Donald Trump goes and insults one of his enemies when he's supposed to be recognizing WW2 veterans. He insults her with an odd slur that if he had any sensitivity he would have realized wouldn't sit well with Navajo code talkers.
Then there's the other side. That crass dig was, in his own insensitive way, calling out Warren for falsely claiming to be native american in the past. It's true, she did claim it, repeatedly, and later a genealogy report would show no evidence of native american decent in her family line. She has, at this point, not acknowledged or rectified this. Sooo Trump's insult about Warren was r- *gag* right.
But like anything with a Trump insult, there's something missing there. I'm from Oklahoma. Here's the thing about Oklahomans, a LOT of us have a family history that involves native americans. Well, supposedly. Warren likely heard that she had native american blood from her family growing up and had no reason to doubt it (other than never having to deal with a pipeline being built through her house). I have also been told this. I've been told that I'm distantly related to some native american princess who's name always seems to escape those who vaguely recall hearing about it. We've been meaning to get a genealogy report done on our family for a while now, but after this I'm going to be a lot more careful repeating that to people until I know otherwise. Point is, I personally don't believe that Warren was ever knowingly deceiving anyone, she was just mistaken. Ever been wrong? Happened to me once. The only issue here is Warren needs to own up to the honest mistake, state she won't be making that claim in the future, and then move on. That's really the only responsibility she has to this, since being wrong about your family's past is hardly some sort of racist aggression that needs any great apology. In other words, as usual, I think Trump blew up a non-issue.
Well, then there's Franken. Here's the thing, more women are coming forward, and in large enough numbers that I have no reason to doubt them. Franken has owned up to these ones too. I WANT to be in a place where men who honestly and openly admit to their failings, are forgiven by those they have trespassed, and show real proof of sincerity and a genuine attempt to change. I would like that to be Al, but I keep thinking of things that make it harder, not least being that harassing women is a hard thing to move beyond even when someone genuinly wants to change. Like, if someone mugged you and beat you and then took photos after, I don't think you owe them forgiveness just because they have genuinely changed. You don't owe them a damn thing. I think it's totally ok to just keep hating them forever. That aside though, forgiveness is a higher path and kudos to those that can muster it. So what's the problem? Al Franken has at no point admitted to anything he hasn't been accused of. You think it's just 4? Aren't you cute. I would love, just once, for a politician to just admit to this wrongdoing in advance, with no signs anyone is about to expose them. If Al Franken just lays all the cards out on the table, admits to EVERYTHING he can remember, and at least admits to a pattern of behavior if "For me it was a Tuesday", and genuinely works to contact everyone he may have hurt to seek amends, THEN I'll know it's more than just lip service.
So within the past few days in "a reminder that Trump is evil and not just stupid and a baby"...
- As you said said racist things about Eliabeth Warren in front of a Native American audience.
- Trump re-tweeteed some super-far-right anti-Muslim videos made by European extremists.
- Trump falsely tweeted that Joe Scarborough, the TV host who used to be a friend of sorts of his but now is not, killed someone, because he is upset about Joe's anti-Trump tone I imagine.
- He is still inexplicably stupid though: for instance, Trump is trying to undermine his Secretary of State again, even though the guy is gutting the State Department just as requested.
And more.
And meanwhile the Republican Party is doing their absolute best to pass the worst tax cut ever, a bill so heinously cruel that it OPENLY, not secretly but openly, either does not cut or actually raises taxes on the poor and middle classes in order to give a massive payout to billionaires. It'll probably pass, too. Maybe a miracle will happen and it'll fail, but it's looking like it's very likely going to pass passage now. I only hope that if it does the blowback from passing such a bill hurts a lot of those people at the ballot box next year...
Oh, and Trump's nominees continue to be insanely unqualified people doing their best to destroy the American government. The famous right-wing phrase is that government should be "small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub", but that implied leaving some shred of government that actually functioned. Trump's people don't get anywhere near that minimal implied level of competence; they're just arsonists, burning our government to the ground for no reason.
As for the sexual harrassment issue, Kos is now saying that he thinks that Franken and Conyers should resign: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11...#read-more and he's probably right. I hope that Republican offenders are also publicly outed so they can be pushed into retirement as well though, it shouldn't only be our side...
Franken is up to 6 accusers now. Did I call it or did I call it? I won... nothing.
What do you think of the Warren situation, such as it is? For the record I still think she's the best candidate for president right now, but I think she should clear the air on this once and for all to keep her integrity & put it behind her.
So a couple of days ago, Michael Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI as a part of the Mueller investigation. He flipped, to turn on people above him and avoid worse charges. This is a major turn for the investigation, as Flynn was National Security Adviser, and there are not many people above him; it's pretty much only Trump and his family. The net is slowly closing.
Then that night, the Senate Republicans responded by... passing a "tax cut" bill that is in fact a massive payout to the ultra-rich and also a way to undermine the welfare state, not really a tax cut bill as we normally understand them. I am not surprised, because while I thought the Republican Party's chances of passing a full health care bill were not good, if there's one thing Republicans love it's cutting taxes, and indeed they are still on track to pass this one. It could still fail if the House and Senate can't agree on a bill they both pass, but it'll probably pass and it's an insanely bad, damaging bill.
That's really bad, and the damage this bill will surely do to America is awful. It says a LOT about their party that their response to proof that Mueller is slowly starting to close in on Trump is THIS, passing this incredibly awful bill.
The good news is, though, that the American people have noticed what this bill is. Two polls released in the past day or so show the tax bill polling at a positive approval rating of 29%, which is insanely low for tax cut anything in America! Ever since the beginning Americans have hated taxes, and it's usually easy to justify tax cut bills. Reagan and George W. Bush both passed huge tax cuts, and those tax cut bills mostly helped the rich and damaged the American economy in ways that in both cases helped cause economic downturns. However, when they passed those bills were widely popular, with approval ratings well over 50%, because they sold them as tax cuts for everyone, not only the rich. The bills included real tax cuts for the middle class, and bigger cuts for the wealthy. This bill, though, fails that test; it is so blatant in how it's only for the rich that the Republican Party has actually managed to make a tax cut bill that the American people do not like! That is truly impressive, even if it says a lot about how badly their party has devolved towards a failure to being able to govern.
So yeah, if this passes it should help the Democrats next November. But because of all the people it will hurt, and the fact that the Republicans will use these cuts to try to tear apart the social safety net (such as it is), I still very much hope that it fails, however unlikely that is.
But yeah, that they passed this ON THE SAME DAY that Flynn flipped publicly and Mueller pushed one step closer to getting Trump says a whole, whole lot about their party: priority number one is tax cuts for their ultrawealthy donor base. Nothing else matters.
An awful bill that was forced through JUST so the republicans could say they did something. That's it. Not something "good", just "something".
Edit: I can't think of a good reason this shouldn't go in our self-defeating prophecy megathread. Slowly but surely the title is starting to mean something good again.
Al Franken is resigning. His list of accusers keeps growing, and certain quotes like "it's my right as a celebrity" do NOT help things. His apologies were "the right thing" at first, but with all that's come out, they ring very hollow indeed. There are some disgusting democrats out there arguing that we should tolerate it because "what about the consequences if a republican replaces him?". Well, no, that's not how justice works.
Yeah, he probably had to do this. If he actually said that "it's my right as a celebrity" line that's horrible! He denies saying that specific line, but it is hard to believe that there would be this many accusations without truth behind them, and those "I don't remember" excuses are really weak. It's too bad because he has been a very good senator, but he had to go.
Quote: Edit: I can't think of a good reason this shouldn't go in our self-defeating prophecy megathread. Slowly but surely the title is starting to mean something good again.
1) I like that thread title.
2) Why does everything have to be in this super-wrong-titled thread? It is true that slowly maybe the title is becoming more good as that party melts down, and that needs to happen considering how broken their party is now (maybe someday it'll actually be fixed? Not anytime soon, though.), but along the way they're doing a lot of bad, this tax bill first and foremost so far.
Quote: An awful bill that was forced through JUST so the republicans could say they did something. That's it. Not something "good", just "something".
Well, "something that their ultra-wealthy donors desperately want" (to save themselves millions in taxes) might be an even better way of putting it, but yeah. It's mostly just to pass something, anything, just to say they have.
Probably, but he is pretty much retired now, that is a factor. On that note, though, if something similar to the "Me Too" movement had happened in a Hillary administration, Bill's past actions would be a much bigger problem than they are now...
In the future though, the question of how much Bill should speak for candidates in the next few elections definitely will be something up for debate. On the one hand he's an absolutely amazing speaker, one of the best alive I would say, but on the other hand he is getting older and those charges against him matter as much or more now than ever. I'm guessing that despite the former he'll have less presence in future campaigns.
It's for the best. Never get so caught up a single person that you feel compelled to ignore damning sins. As Mark Twain might put it, sure Bill Clinton is a good speaker, but there are undoubtedly better speakers somewhere out there right now, toiling in obscurity just because mere chance deemed that he should come to prominence and not them. Many of them will be minorities and women, so the hunt should be on for those who can replace Clinton.
Just imagine extending this "They are too important to the cause you need to swallow your selfish need for justice and let them continue the good work" to other crimes. If someone is the sole provider of some perfect cure for all possible cancers, but is selfish enough to keep it proprietary, does that mean that morally we are obligated to overlook the cavern of bones in his basement from all the orphans he has eaten alive?
I heard that, and that's really too bad because Some News was the first thing I've actually cared about Cracked for... I hope that guy keeps making something similar on his own, but if not it was good, at least.
In other news, Alabama votes tomorrow. Moore, despite being a horrible person in many way, has the edge, but if Jones manages an upset win that would be just fantastic... I can't say that I expect it to happen because while the polling is over the place Moore has the edge on average and Republicans have a massive advantage in that state, but it is close enough that it could go either way. With any normal, sane Republican candidate this would not be a contest at all, but because of who they nominated it is. Senator Roy Moore would be an awful thing, though. Surprise us, Alabama, it'd be great...
Alright so the host for Some News is Cody Johnston. Keep an eye out for that guy, and also writers listed in the credits since he didn't do it alone.
(If there is one thing I've learned from one failed kickstarter after another it's how false the "Top person did it all by whimswelf" narrative is. I tend to look at the "big picture" when it comes to kickstarters now. Does the entire team have a good track record, or were involved in whatever knockoff variant of my favorite franchise they are now working on? If it's just one big name and a company I've never heard of, it's a hard pass for me from now on.
Notably, by sheer luck I picked right when I backed Torment because they fit those qualifications.
Anyway, back on topic here's some playlist of some news.
Yeah, that's a good point; the staff behind a creative project are just as important as the public face. For sure.
So yesterday, Alabama unsurprisingly...
wait, they actually did the right thing? Doug Jones won? I honestly didn't believe it would happen until it did, but it's pretty amazing! The 49.9-48.4 margin is closer than you'd like to see, for sure -- it is clear that Jones only won because of the child sexual assault charges -- but in perhaps the most Republican state in the nation it takes a lot for a Democrat to win, and everything fell together perfectly for Jones.
This was a very important win for several major reasons, including that it will narrow the margin in the Senate to 51-49 once Jones gets seated in early January and that it means a child molester will not be a sitting senator. That latter point is important, but for the future so is the former, both for the next year and for how much more plausible it makes the idea of the Democrats winning the Senate next year despite the really, really bad map.
So yeah, it's a good day for democracy.
On the other hand, though, the campaign against Robert Mueller is concerning; he needs to continue and finish his work! The Republicans are trying to undermine the investigation any way they can, presumably because they are scared of what he is finding and want people to not believe it once it comes out. Sadly, it's not only the right; and a few members of the press are buying into this too, and that's a problem because their lies and half-truths about Mueller and the investigation need to be countered.
To be clear, defending the truth should not be a partisan issue, and Mueller and his team are, I'm sure, staying as impartial as possible. One of the most disturbingly deceptive attacks the right is using is that because that one guy who was removed from the investigation was a Hillary supporter, the investigation is compromised... even though, well, that's why he was removed! Saying "because he is there at all that compromises an investigation that he was removed from for that reason" is complete nonsense and doesn't hold up to a second's thought, or shouldn't.
Seriously, if Russia did interfere with our election as they seem to have this is something all Americans should care deeply about! But the Republican Party has decided to make this a partisan issue in order to protect this administration so that's how it is, unfortunately.
So I wish Trump much misery over the next year as he worries about this continuing investigation. I just hope that he and his people are stopped while we still have a democracy!
The real question is is there any legal l case to be made for that kind of interference? They provided reams of fake news, and that's how they hacked it. What's to be done there?
If he commits crimes, do the republicans even need to do anything about it? Can you be president from inside a jail cell? How would that work? Does the secret service have to stand down if the police arrest Trump? Would the secret service fight the police?
Dark Jaguar Wrote:If he commits crimes, do the republicans even need to do anything about it?
That's the problem, there's nothing that says that they MUST do something about it. Democratic norms say that we as a nation should, but will they? So far that party is much more interested in trying to not learn what happened and cover it up than they are in revealing the truth, whatever that is, to the public. Mueller would need some REALLY good evidence for this to go anywhere, and even then it probably wouldn't happen until/unless the Democrats take the House back.
Quote:Can you be president from inside a jail cell? How would that work? Does the secret service have to stand down if the police arrest Trump? Would the secret service fight the police?
No president has ever been criminally charged while in office, because of the disruption having a sitting president on trial would cause the nation. There is no law saying that he CANNOT be charged, I don't believe, but it'd be tough to make the case that he should be, I'd guess. The definite Constitutional recourse for a bad officeholder is impeachment. But if a party refuses to remove serious corruption within its ranks and the other party is in the minority, we're left with a very bad situation...
It would be much more disruptive to our nation if openly anti-democracy forces like Trump's were allowed to do whatever they want without being stopped, so yes, I would hope that a court would allow a suit to continue. There's no guarantee, though.
Anyway though, the Republicans finally managed to pass their horrendous tax-cut bill, which cuts middle-class taxes a little, for a few years, and rich people taxes a lot, permanently. If left unchanged this bill will continue America's slide towards even greater inequality, so it needs to change, soon! Basically, fix it by leaving the middle-class bit but raising taxes on corporations and the rich. But the good side is that with how impressively unpopular the tax cut bill is, a very rare thing for a tax cut bill in this nation, it should hurt the Republicans in the 2018 elections. And with how badly they've done in elections this year even without that additional damage, that could be good news. Polling averages already have the Democrats up by 12, the most seen at this point in an election cycle since polling began in the late 1930s, and on average things only get worse for the party in power from this point on... here's hoping!
The problem is, of course, that until we get to that point the Republicans will keep damaging our nation and the world. Coming up next, the drumbeats for a war with North Korea continue, irregardless of the fact that millions would probably die, many of them our allies...
Ugh, that is a very plausible possibility, isn't it... this party can be pretty bad at getting things done sometimes. If the Democrats actually get full control of the government, though, I do think that it would happen. We'll have to see, though.
There's also the parallels with the republicans trying to repeal obamacare for a ridiculously long period of time, which they will be sure to point out.
Well, in this case, if nothing is done middle class taxes will go up after the time-limited cuts end over the next ten years. Meanwhile, the corporate tax cut is permanent. Fixing this by just continuing the middle-class cuts is the simplest solution, and it could well happen (as bad for the deficit as that is), but a much better solution is to raise taxes on corporations and the rich at the same time that you keep, and hopefully expand, the middle-class portion.
Basically, the fact that the middle class cuts END should be a major factor pushing the Democrats towards passing something.
I wonder, are there any members left in the Republican Party who aren't willing to become supporters of treason? Because it isn't much if any of an exaggeration to say that that is exactly what Paul Ryan, Lindsey Graham, and Chuck Grassley are doing here. These are people who once claimed to have some kind of respectability, unlike Trump's more ardent supporters in the Tea Party and such, but Ryan clearly has abandoned that in favor of sucking up to Trump, and Graham and Grassley look like they want to join him.
It's a tragedy really, but all we can hope for as Americans is that these people fail and our democracy does not get subverted by Trumpist autocracy...
Of course, the poll numbers continue looking very very good for that, but we still need to get to November to see that. Will we get to November smoothly? Will they start a war (with North Korea, Iran, or someone else)? Or worse? We will have to see... but hopefully there are enough people in this administration who realize how ruinously terrible either of those wars would be to keep them from happening no matter what the idiot in charge declares. As those stories up top suggest though, that may be asking too much. Though I think even most of those people realize how incredibly bad an idea a war with North Korea would be, people like Graham have wanted war with Iran for decades, and I'm sure he'd love to take the chance to finally do that even if it ended up being another debacle.
The government just shut down because the Senate failed to pass a bill that continues to fund the government. It needed 60 votes, but the vote failed 50-49, with 45 Rs and 5 Dems voting Yes, and 44 Dems and 4 Rs (plus McConnell for procedural reasons) voting No.
The main reason that is happened is because Trump is incompetent, and is unable to stick to one policy demand for more than the amount of time it takes for the next person to start speaking. So, his far-right immigrant-hating advisers sabotaged all attempts and negotiation, Trump went along with it because he is not smart (and is racist too), and the result is this, a shutdown.
On the one hand, DACA is important and a worthwhile program, and it should continue.
On the other hand though, I am somewhat worried about shutting down the government mostly over that issue, because as important as it is, is it enough to justify a shutdown with? While it only happened that way because of some pretty disgusting (and racist) Republican skulduggery, I don't like the look of Republicans voting to keep the government open, and us voting to close it. Democrats should be the party in favor of government. In this case given how bad their actions were, to refuse any and all offers on DACA because the hard right doesn't want the program (or any brown people) period, the shutdown is probably justified, but I really wish it hadn't come to this.
On the other other hand though, McConnell and Trump's disgustingly racist language and speeches over DACA and the shutdown make me question that caution and kind of want to shut the government down, because seriously, their behavior is disgusting and language is unconscionable! Schumer was absolutely right in his speech, while Democrats provided the votes that shut the government down, Trump's inability to learn how government works or push for a deal that would have gotten him a lot of what he wants is the reason why this shutdown is happening, and it will only end when or if Trump manages to actually have a position on something. Considering how unlikely that is, though, this could take a while...
Or else another short-term continuing resolution will pass and we'll be back at this in a few weeks. We'll see.
Either way, the core of the problem here is that budgets need 60 votes, and Trump and the Republican Party have forgotten how to govern in a democracy. You can't pass a budget with a party-line vote, but very few people on their side are willing willing to offend their extremist racist base, so they keep refusing to make a DACA deal, keep trying to build Trump's wall, and have spent most of the past decade refusing to work with Democrats on most anything. But a functioning democracy requires TWO parties, not one, and two parties which sometimes work together on things. We don't have that anymore, so the system is breaking down, as you see here. Trump's ignorance and incompetence makes all of the other problems incalculably worse, and with the two together you get, well, this: a shutdown because Republicans refuse to negotiate, and Democrats have finally had enough and are finally actually going to stand for something. It's about time.
But the big question is, who will benefit from this in the end? A large part of that depends on what the result of the shutdown and budget deals is, of course. Who will cave first? Who wins the deal? And in November, will Dems suffer for this because of voting no, will they benefit because of a base energized by Dems finally actually not caving in immediately on an important issue, or will it end up not being a major factor? I'm not really sure, it could go any of those ways. We will have to see.
The republicans have been holding the government hostage over this for way too long. McConnell's main legacy is going to be finding "cheats" to get his way. An argument can be made that this is the democrat's fault. They aren't blameless here, but all they ever actually needed to do was just extend the budget like they always do. It's always been the republicans that have insisted on tying some piece of their agenda to this basic duty of congress.
There are risks on both sides here. On the one had, Dems are the ones stopping funding from continuing, so Republicans can push a (somewhat valid) narrative that it's the Dems' fault. On the other hand, they are only doing that because of how Republicans are tying funding the government to SCHIP and DACA, and saying 'fund the government and CHIP, forget DACA for now but we'll do that next month, really!' which is not believable AT ALL given how devoted the far right is to not just killing DACA, but reducing immigration overall. And then there's Trump, the incompetent TV-watcher-in-chief who has no clue how government works or what he actually wants, making deal-making nearly impossible because no one has any idea what he actually supports. Schumer actually said 'we'll give you wall funding if you approve DACA' and he rejected that! "Give me the wall, DACA's dead" is a nonstarter, so how do we end this shutdown...
But that's the risk -- who caves first? How long can this go on for? It could be either side, really.
Meanwhile we have Trump saying things like "They aren't going to send us their best." about immigrants. He STILL seems to think the governments of foreign countries round people up and shove them on boats to send our way, rather than individuals just deciding on their own to apply.
Does anyone really think this is going to make a real difference? The GOP shut down the government in 2013 and it is hard to say they suffered at all on account of it.
True, it well might not make much of a difference either way. I thought that that 2013 shutdown would hurt the Republicans, but it didn't at all, they did great the next November. While this is closer to the election, while the Dems may have voted no they only did so because of Trump's actions and I think many people recognize that. Also it is great to see the Democrats actually fight for something, and that energizes the base. You need that though, because shutdowns increase cynicism about the government and both parties in general, which isn't great; I really wish that this debate was possible without a shutdown, because it is not a good thing (shutdowns do hurt, particularly the longer the last), but I guess it wasn't.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:Meanwhile we have Trump saying things like "They aren't going to send us their best." about immigrants. He STILL seems to think the governments of foreign countries round people up and shove them on boats to send our way, rather than individuals just deciding on their own to apply.
Perhaps the top lesson from this shutdown is a reminder that Trump doesn't actually know anything, he just parrots whatever he is told, by the people he listens to. And sadly, right now he is listening to the ultra-conservative immigration extremists who want less legal immigration and no DACA.
So, hmm... a deal is done, and a lot of liberals are angry about it because it doesn't get DACA through now. As my previous posts suggest though, I am less upset. Now, the deal is not ideal. It would have been much better if DACA had been in this deal, but it's not good to have the government be shut down so for now I'm okay with this deal. While there is some cause for concern, I think that some critics of this deal are going way too far. Basically, I'm thinking of this shutdown as a warning shot -- a Democratic statement that we need a DACA bill, and that the far right's horribly anti-American opposition to having any kind of DACA deal, never mind much legal immigration, cannot win the day. Three weeks is not long, and if McConnell goes back on his word (which he could, as he only said he "intends" to bring up a DACA bill, not that he definitely will), or if the House and President do not pass whatever DACA bill the Senate passes, there will be another shutdown, and that time the other hostage, CHIP, will be gone; CHIP is funded for six years now.
Yes, I know cynics are saying 'well in three weeks they'll just cave again', but I doubt it. The main point of this shutdown was for DACA, and I think that the Democrats care enough about that program to not just stand by and watch it end with no response that gets it back. The Dems may give up too easily way too often, but I don't think even this party would do THAT.
So with this shutdown, the Dems showed that they are serious about immigration. If nothing happens there will be another shutdown, though I very much hope there isn't, and that a deal gets through to avoid it. If another shutdown does happen though, with the CHIP hostage freed now and with it being closer to that pseudo-DACA deadline in March, there will be no reason to give in for only nebulous promises next time. Figuring the budget and DACA out is what the next three weeks are for.
So, as a final thought, for now who won or lost this really isn't known because that depends on what happens over the next few weeks. Given how much more political power Republicans have than Democrats and with how much Trump is listening to the worst voices on immigration getting a good deal through will be hard, but despite the challenges if they actually vote on it passage should be able to happen. If the Dems end up with a signed, decent DACA bill out of this in the end, as they should, then this was a victory. Again, consider that the anti-immigrant right wants NO DACA, less legal immigration, etc, etc -- stopping those people and getting DACA through again WOULD be a definite win.
Quote: But thats not even what immigration is though! "They" don't "send us" anyone! They don't! That's not how it works! It's not how it wooooorks!
But just like how Donald Trump controls every decision made by every American, other foreign governments do the same for their citizens, right? Isn't that how it works?
So, the State of the Union address is today, and Trump's going to use it as a moneymaking advertisement, apparently. Because of course he is. I'm sure it will not be a very good speech, but don't think I will watch.
Meanwhile, Devin Nunes and the Republican Party are busy trying to destroy democracy, the FBI, and the Justice Department all in the name of holding political power they don't deserve: the House Intelligence Committee's Republican members are going to release Nunes' anti-FBI/Justice memo, while not allowing the release of the Democratic members' memo. While there are reasons to dislike many things Justice and the FBI have done, those reasons are pretty much on the opposite end of the spectrum from why Trump and his cronies like Nunes don't like them -- think racial justice, etc.
Unfortunately for the Republicans our legal establishment still believes in democracy and the rule of law, ideas the Republicans have abandoned, so this conflict was inevitable. This is a somewhat high-stakes fight here, and the wrong side can't win. With how much we've heard about how critically flawed Nunes' memo is, and with how obviously Nunes is 100% in Trump's corner, I doubt this will have the impact the Republicans want, but their base will eat it up and that alone is really bad given how divided this nation is now.
I guess we'll just have to wait to see what happens, but I hope it goes well. On that note, we went to see The Post a while ago. It's really good, watch it!
Joe Kennedy III's Democratic response to the State of the Union speech was great! The content of the speech was pretty standard Democratic Party stuff, but he spoke very well, so it was a really good speech. I think having an audience for it was a good idea too, a party response can never match the pageantry of a SOTU, but this was better than just him in front of a podium or something.
... Yes, that he is very obviously a Kennedy and looks it surely helps him as well, but despite that it really was a pretty good speech.
