The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

At this point, I'm getting a strong feeling that Trump isn't this stupid and he's doing this shit on purpose...

[Patticus]

Comey's full statement, to be delivered live on multiple mainstream and news networks tomorrow, primarily revolves around the conversations he had with Trump.

Quote

I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past. I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) –once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016. In neither of those circumstances did I memorialize the discussions.

Quote

A few moments later, the President said, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence.

Quote

He said I have nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia & always had assumed he was been recorded when in Russia

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf\

I've already heard the statement compared to the Nixon tapes, but frankly I don't know if that comparison is justified. Trump has already survived dozens of scandals that would have sank ordinary politicians many times over - I don't want to believe that this of all things could sink him but could it? Or is that just hyperbolic thinking?

[Kevin]

It's going to be very interesting watching Comey's testimony today. I'm actually hoping Trump tweets about it while it's occurring and Comey disputes the tweets on live TV.

[Volphied]

JESUS CHRIST Comey is so far KILLING IT!

 

Trump's gonna be MAD.

[Kevin]

I peronsalmy thought it was hilarious when he said "Lordy" when giving his answering regarding the "tapes"

[Tani Coyote]

Signs are the Democratic Party is gradually removing its head from its posterior and laying the foundation for a 50-state strategy.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/30/15698378/house-democrats-pac

For starters, three House Democrats in the Midwest/Appalachia region have backed a PAC dedicated to putting forward progressive candidates who are nonetheless in various ways moderates or otherwise in touch with the region's issues. This is part of an effort to make the Democratic brand more populist and weaken the ability of the GOP to use Nancy Pelosi as a lightning rod.

You can get a conservative slant on the news here, which highlights the antagonism many swing voters have towards the Democratic agenda, feeling it focuses too much on social justice over economics (and on obstructing Trump for the sake of obstruction over crafting compromises). A complaint which, based on the Clinton campaign's ad choices, isn't too out there. I'm hopeful Clinton was just so assured of her victory she felt she didn't need to work too hard on a message with mass appeal, while the Democrats in 2018 and 2020 realize they need to find ways to court swing, if not conservative, voters. Disastrous bills such as the AHCA provide a way for Democrats to push back against the GOP and steal much of its base, such as the coveted senior vote.

Basically, Democrats are seeing something akin to a repeat of the struggle within the New Deal coalition.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-south-carolina-house_us_5936e3eee4b0099e7fafc255

Meanwhile, the South Carolina 5th House seat race has picked up. The DCC has formally invested $275,000 in the race, which will be held on June 20th, the same time as the closer, more intensely watched Georgia 6th. Given the Democratic enthusiasm for voting over the Republican base's in this race, there's actually a decent chance turnout shenanigans will result in the Democrats flipping the seat.

The DCC's interest in the race is basically as a testing ground for future policies in deeply red areas. A fairly safe GOP seat turning competitive and at risk of flipping due to Democratic enthusiasm is certainly worth looking into, to see what kinds of approaches the Democrats can make in similar areas nationwide.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/09/poll-jon-ossoff-karen-handel-georgia-239349

Latest poll for the Georgia 6th puts Ossoff 7 points ahead of Handel. The margin of error, however, means the race remains a clear tossup. Every vote counts on the 20th.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nevada-health-coverage-20170607-story.html

The Governor of Nevada is evaluating the Medicaid for All bill. He has until the 16th to sign or veto, or it automatically becomes law. It doesn't go into effect until January 1, 2019, so his successor will be the one who has to administer it.

The pessimist in me thinks he'll veto on the basis of not having enough information to go on, despite the fact he's one of the few GOP Governors who isn't rabidly opposed to Medicaid expansion.

[SSF1991]

10 hours ago, Lord Liquir (Ogilvie) said:

Signs are the Democratic Party is gradually removing its head from its posterior and laying the foundation for a 50-state strategy.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/30/15698378/house-democrats-pac

For starters, three House Democrats in the Midwest/Appalachia region have backed a PAC dedicated to putting forward progressive candidates who are nonetheless in various ways moderates or otherwise in touch with the region's issues. This is part of an effort to make the Democratic brand more populist and weaken the ability of the GOP to use Nancy Pelosi as a lightning rod.

You can get a conservative slant on the news here, which highlights the antagonism many swing voters have towards the Democratic agenda, feeling it focuses too much on social justice over economics (and on obstructing Trump for the sake of obstruction over crafting compromises). A complaint which, based on the Clinton campaign's ad choices, isn't too out there. I'm hopeful Clinton was just so assured of her victory she felt she didn't need to work too hard on a message with mass appeal, while the Democrats in 2018 and 2020 realize they need to find ways to court swing, if not conservative, voters. Disastrous bills such as the AHCA provide a way for Democrats to push back against the GOP and steal much of its base, such as the coveted senior vote.

Basically, Democrats are seeing something akin to a repeat of the struggle within the New Deal coalition.

This is the biggest thing I wanted to see happen. The Democrats needed a makeover and it looks like that's exactly what they're doing. I also want the GOP to fall out of power, obviously, but the Democrats going this route could make that happen. All they need is a progressive candidate for 2020, and things could get interesting.

 

[Volphied]

I'm increasingly worried we won't survive until 2018.

[Tani Coyote]

I think we'll be fine. At some point he'll become so unpalatable the GOP will agree to toss him out on the basis that his policy will lead to a collapse of all their financial interests. Pence isn't much better, but one can at least be confident he won't pour gasoline on everything and light a match.

Sooner or later he'll have to dial it back, Russia scandal or not.

Either way, sad to see Obama's progress with Iran is going to be in tatters by the time this administration is over. If a Democrat retakes the White House in 2020, they have a precious few months to patch things up with Rouhani before a radical ends up taking Iran's Presidency in 2021.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Insofar as Iran's president can actually do shit, at least.

The position's just a figurehead...

[Tani Coyote]

54 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Insofar as Iran's president can actually do shit, at least.

The position's just a figurehead...

Custom has as much power as law, very often. This is the guiding principle of states like Britain that don't have a formal constitution.

It's just the same in Iran; the President technically has little power, but the position serves as a finger on the pulse of public opinion and by proxy serves as the bread and circuses of the regime. There are cases where the Supreme Leader has bowed to public pressure, after all. The Presidency serves as a safety valve in Iran to keep the regime from becoming too unpopular.

Rouhani's victory, for example, serves as a reminder to the Supreme Leader that the Iranian people are interested in healing the rift with the West, though someone like Trump is making this very difficult.

[KHCast]

Can someone explain what exactly went down regarding Comey yesterday. Cause both sides of the political spectrum seem to be using his testimony to say that they won and the owned the other side. Republicans are saying Trump was never under investigation and Russian interference was never a thing period, and that Hilary could have been put in jail, and democrats are saying Comey tore Trump a new one. So what the fuck happened?:/

[Tornado]

He used language that was vague in regards to what Trump actually asked of him, and then he wasn't actually pressed on it further most of the time.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

10 minutes ago, Tornado said:

He used language that was vague in regards to what Trump actually asked of him, and then he wasn't actually pressed on it further most of the time.

So he didn't actually say anything that could be used against Trump?

[Candescence]

2 hours ago, KHCast said:

Can someone explain what exactly went down regarding Comey yesterday. Cause both sides of the political spectrum seem to be using his testimony to say that they won and the owned the other side. Republicans are saying Trump was never under investigation and Russian interference was never a thing period, and that Hilary could have been put in jail, and democrats are saying Comey tore Trump a new one. So what the fuck happened?:/

Mostly lies and delusion:

1) The investigation thing: Misleading. Trump may not have been directly under investigation at the time, but he never said he wasn't now under investigation for obstruction of justice, and the left the judgement of the latter to the special counsel.

2) No Russian interference: Bullshit. Comey even outright stated that the intelligence community is absolutely certain that the Russian government interfered with the election.

3) Clinton committing a crime: Also bullshit. Comey never said anything that would even suggest that, the most he said was that Loretta Lynch made some potentially problematic decisions with the framing of the investigation. Incidentally, the reason Comey made that speech during the campaign was due to a document (which turned out to be  a fake document by the Russians, which was questionable even at the time) that he was worried would leak out and compromise the investigation.

tl;dr: Comey's testimony isn't exactly a smoking gun, but anyone who says the opposite is either delusional, ignorant or a fucking liar.

[Dejimon11]

The former President of Mexico just roasted Trump and gave him some advice. I have no words.

 

[Volphied]

How long until courts suddenly start approving Trump's regressive policies?

[Patticus]

Meanwhile, the agenda he touts all the time isn't going through because he hasn't nominated anyone for most of the key posts necessary to push it, and when names are floated, the White House sits on the process and wonders what the big hold up is.
 

Edit: Yesterday, Trump's son tried to defend his father, but ended up seeming to confirm Comey's assertion that Trump's "hope" was in fact a demand. Source.

He probably wanted to say something along these lines: "When my dad wants you to do something, he doesn't ask, he demands it. He would never have merely asked Comey to drop the investigation. He would have demanded it of him. And so I find Comey's account to be somewhat unbelievable."

But he actually ended up saying this: "When my dad wants you to do something he doesn't ask, he demands it. He would never have merely asked Comey to drop the investigation. He would have demanded it of him. And that's what he did."

I'm sure that he probably didn't mean to link his comment to the specific Trump / Comey / Flynn situation, but he did, because like his father, he's fatally prone to being an idiot. That's how Trump operates though - as a CEO, he's used to demanding things be done, and then them getting done. It's clear now that he knows no other way to behave, and as a result, he committed what many believe to be obstruction of justice.

 

Meanwhile...

 

Quote

Donald Trump's state visit to Britain put on hold
US president told Theresa May he did not want trip to go ahead if there were large-scale public protests

Donald Trump has told Theresa May in a phone call he does not want to go ahead with a state visit to Britain until the British public supports him coming.

The US president said he did not want to come if there were large-scale protests and his remarks in effect put the visit on hold for some time.

The call was made in recent weeks, according to a Downing Street adviser who was in the room. The statement surprised May, according to those present.

The conversation in part explains why there has been little public discussion about a visit.

May invited Trump to Britain seven days after his inauguration when she became the first foreign leader to visit him in the White House. She told a joint press conference she had extended an invitation from the Queen to Trump and his wife Melania to make a state visit later in the year and was “delighted that the president has accepted that invitation”.

Many senior diplomats, including Lord Ricketts, the former national security adviser, said the invitation was premature, but impossible to rescind once made.

Trump has named Woody Johnson, a Republican donor and owner of the New York Jets, as the new ambassador to the UK but has yet to nominate him formally. A large number of US ambassadorial positions remain unfilled worldwide largely due to the Trump team failing to make any formal nominations.

The acting US ambassador to the UK, Lewis Lukens, a career diplomat, clashed with Trump last week by praising Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, for his strong leadership over the London Bridge and Borough Market terror attack.

His remarks came just days after Trump criticised Khan for his response to the attack, misquoting the mayor’s message to Londoners not to be alarmed by the increased presence of armed police.

Khan’s office pointed out Trump’s error later but the president responded by accusing London’s mayor of making a “pathetic excuse”. Khan then called on the UK government to cancel Trump’s invitation. No date had been fixed for the visit.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/donald-trump-state-visit-to-britain-put-on-hold?CMP=twt_gu

Basically, unless there are no mass protests (an impossible ask in a western democracy), he doesn't want anything to do with a state visit to the UK. I had hoped that the British government would have shitcanned it long ago, but no, we have to rely on the most insecure man alive to do it to himself instead.
 

It would actually be great if he were made to speak under oath, since any questions regarding the innumerable other lies he's told over the years (and oh, there would be many such questions) would force him either to admit to lying, or perjure himself. Since he isn't a man likely ever to admit to any kind of wrongdoing, the likelihood or perjury seems very high. Either way, though, it would bring us much closer to an actual impeachment.

[Neon Zephyr]

While I know the concept of people bringing suits against Trump isn't all that new, this may be of interest:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-and-maryland-to-sue-president-trump-alleging-breach-of-constitutional-oath/2017/06/11/0059e1f0-4f19-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html

Quote

Racine said he felt obligated to sue Trump in part because the Republican-controlled Congress has not taken the president’s apparent conflicts seriously.

“We’re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be,” he said.

Two AGs filing this one, however, makes it far more likely to at least gain traction. 

[Candescence]

Welp, so a US appeals court shut down Trump's travel ban v2 and used his own tweets as evidence that he was severely overstepping his authority.

Trump's advisers really need to get him to stop tweeting, because he keeps incriminating himself.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2017/PPP_Release_National_61217.pdf

Public Policy Polling has some neat findings for us to look over on various policy issues. I think the two key takeaways from this are:

1. 42% of Trump voters think it's appropriate to body slam reporters. 45% think it's inappropriate. By contrast, only 6% of Clinton voters think it's okay to bodyslam reporters. It's kind of hard to decry antifa violence if you're not willing to stand up for the free press, to be honest.

2. The gender binary's effects are hard to miss. Women are far less likely to be interested in politics than men. Note how men tend to lead in categories of approving/disapproving leaders like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, while women are far more likely to answer "not sure." While Trump's election seems to be motivating more women to participate in politics, it's still incredibly depressing to see that women tend to take less of an interest. Maybe this explains why the GOP can have such extreme positions on abortion despite opinion polls being so broadly pro-choice.

3 hours ago, Candescence said:

Welp, so a US appeals court shut down Trump's travel ban v2 and used his own tweets as evidence that he was severely overstepping his authority.

Trump's advisers really need to get him to stop tweeting, because he keeps incriminating himself.

My only regret is we can't create an app that directly broadcasts Trump's thoughts to Twitter. Picture how clogged his timeline would be then, with zero censoring of what he's thinking.

[Patticus]

Easy-D's thinking about firing the special counsel - though he'd have to have Sessions order his deputy to do it.

Something something Nixon something obstruction...

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.11alive.com/news/politics/elections/ballot/race-to-replace-tom-price-handel-and-ossoff-tied-with-one-week-to-go/448120182

With one week to go, Ossoff and Handel are tied for the Georgia 6th race. This really will be a turnout race.

Ossoff's advantage is the early ballots are overwhelmingly Democrat, while Handel has an edge with voters who are neutral towards Trump. Another advantage is that while 94% of Democrats back Ossoff, only 91% of Republicans back Handel; this indicates an enthusiasm gap that could potentially be what gives Ossoff the race.

It all boils down to who shows up next week. It's going to be a real nailbiter. If Ossoff pulls off an upset, the GOP has reason to be concerned.

Of course, I predict if Ossoff wins, Trump will make a mocking Tweet that he had to spend millions upon millions of outside dollars to achieve it, while also praising the fact the GOP keeps the majority either way.

Honestly, I hope he does. I want him to make his base complacent so Democrat turnout is far more powerful in 2017 and 2018. These districts that only narrowly flipped are in no need of serious defense given the honeymoon period will surely last into November 2018.

I hope Trump's arrogance will be his downfall, just as it was Clinton's. He's so convinced of his own greatness that he doesn't realize he's being just like her.

41 minutes ago, Patticus said:

Easy-D's thinking about firing the special counsel - though he'd have to have Sessions order his deputy to do it.

Sooner or later, the Senate and House GOP are going to need to grow a spine and call this out.

Or not. I bet many of their constituents aren't going to care. There's enough swing Senate seats to bring Democrats up to 60 seats, but not the coveted 67 needed for removal. Which means hardline Republicans are going to need to vote against Trump, which they're not going to do if their constituents continue to back him.

Honestly, the Divided States of America sounds more appealing by the day. I don't want to share a country with a concerningly large group of voters who are okay with assaulting the free press and letting obstruction of justice go unchecked. It doesn't matter if Trump is completely innocent; the way he keeps trying to shut things down is a clear abuse of power.

[Patticus]

Do you believe the Democrats could take back both houses next year? Seems like pie-in-the-sky thinking, but looking at the way Trump's numbers have fallen since Comey was fired and the Special Counsel was appointed, and how well the Democrats are doing on the generic ballot, I don't know what's doable and what isn't any more.