Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[barmar]

I understand, but we have to deal with it. When I played real chicken in a car as an adolescent, at least I had the thrill of being the driver. Here I am a passenger with a bunch of adolescent morons at the wheel.

 

It is tough to deal with, no doubt about that.We must find a way, and expressing our utter disgust is useful, at least as a start. Again thinking of my adolescence, I recall a cop saying, as he had me by the arm, "Kinda old for this aren't you son?". It actually made an impression on me. Something similar is needed here. They are doing their macho bs with our country. They have to stop. Since they are to stupid or too selfish or too awful to stop on the obvious basis that what they are doing is wrong, we have to find a way be more emphatic. Not playing the game of blaming only one side would be a very good start I think. When dealing with children it is often frustrating to determine who is to blame for a problem. If they understand that you will send them all home without bothering to figure out who caused the problem, that can be a good start.

Other than voting them all out of office, what can we do?

 

I'm reminded of the parable of the Scorpion and the Frog. Why do politicians act like this? It's their nature.

[Winstonm]

I understand, but we have to deal with it. When I played real chicken in a car as an adolescent, at least I had the thrill of being the driver. Here I am a passenger with a bunch of adolescent morons at the wheel.

 

It is tough to deal with, no doubt about that.We must find a way, and expressing our utter disgust is useful, at least as a start. Again thinking of my adolescence, I recall a cop saying, as he had me by the arm, "Kinda old for this aren't you son?". It actually made an impression on me. Something similar is needed here. They are doing their macho bs with our country. They have to stop. Since they are to stupid or too selfish or too awful to stop on the obvious basis that what they are doing is wrong, we have to find a way be more emphatic. Not playing the game of blaming only one side would be a very good start I think. When dealing with children it is often frustrating to determine who is to blame for a problem. If they understand that you will send them all home without bothering to figure out who caused the problem, that can be a good start.

 

I think it is important to point out that this is the Republican party's mess caused by their inability to govern. Congress now is functioning more like a parliament with factions having to compromise with each other to form a majority government.

 

The Senate needs 9 Democratic votes. It would behoove the majority to try to work out a sensible compromise instead of allowing themselves to be continually sidetracked while trying to appease the minority hardliners within their own party.

 

What it gets down to is putting country over party, which means we are in deep crapola.

[Winstonm]

At this time in our political life, I think it is important to remember the trajectory of reality t.v. shows, how they can start out strong and then gradually become a bore and lose viewers due to the repetitive and false nature of the starting premise.

 

It appears that the Fredo presidency is quickly moving toward a final season as viewers (voters) grow weary of the repeated false claims and begin to tune out the incoherent banter - and by doing so make Fredo and people who support him, including those who have moved outside the U.S., more and more irrelevant.

 

Feeling irrelevant is the Achilles' heel of this president; worse, though, is actually being irrelevant.

A Quinnipiac poll released on Wednesday made clear where the passion in politics lies right now. The survey found Trump with a dismal 38 percent job approval rating. More significantly, only 29 percent strongly approved of his performance, while 49 percent strongly disapproved. Intensity of feeling is important to voter turnout, especially in midterms.

 

With ratings in the toilet, there is no strong viewer 'base" to energize. The fact that since the inauguration, the GOP is 4-34 in flipping seats makes the midterms a chancy proposition for the GOP.

 

And if the GOP loses control of both houses, a real long shot but more possible each time a viewer stops watching and protests mount, there is a real possibility that the Fredo West Wing Show will be cancelled.

 

But if that happens, Fredo can comfort himself with the idea that at least for one shining moment in history, all eyes will be on him.

[jjbrr]

Donny Raw Dog? Two Pump Trump? The champion of Family Values.

[jjbrr]

MR. GOWDY: All right. Let me ask you about a couple words you just used. You just used the words "good" and "bad," which some would argue are inherently

subjective; but you also used the word "facts," and what did you mean when you used the word "facts"?

[jjbrr]

The Turkey-Russia connection I think is deeper than is generally understood. I think that the Turkey-Russia -- I think that the influence campaign that General Flynn got caught up In is reflective of that. And I think it's not been excavated. And I think that Roger Stone may have connections to that matter that are unexplored.

 

MR. SCHIFF: Why do you say that?

 

MR. SIMPSON: Things I heard from sources. I think Ted Malloch is an important person in this whole picture. And he may have had some role in all that. He is an interesting person who crosses over from Brexit, UKIP, Trump, and the Turkey-Russia issue. And then the last thing I would add is, you know, we haven't talked about Deutsche Bank at all. You know, I think they obviously know a fair bit. But they are obviously within your subpoena power, and I am assuming you probably already asked them to provide information.

 

(redacted) You are out of time, sir.

 

Let's just go ahead and call (redacted) D. Nunes. That's too obvious, maybe. Let's call him Devin N. instead.

[Winstonm]

Let's put 2+2 together:

 

First, Barrack Obama in 2010 State of the Union address:

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”

 

Second, McClatchy reporting in of January 2018:

The FBI is investigating whether a top Russian banker with ties to the Kremlin illegally funneled money to the National Rifle Association to help Donald Trump win the presidency, two sources familiar with the matter have told McClatchy.

 

FBI counterintelligence investigators have focused on the activities of Alexander Torshin, the deputy governor of Russia’s central bank who is known for his close relationships with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and the NRA, the sources said.

 

Meanwhile, the president of these United States attacks the FBI for being corrupt and calls the free press the enemy of the people.

 

Although he doesn't understand the significance, Fredo is on the course yelling, "Fore!"

[cherdano]

I am so tired of this. In case any congressional staffer is reading this and wants to tell his boss what ken berg, and a great many other people, are thinking let me make it clear. Guys, you all look like idiots. There is this argument about who wlll get the blame if the government shuts down. All of you, isn't that obvious? Maybe some will only look incompetent while others will look like total morons. This will make you feel good? Take a look at the numbers to see what the American public thinks of Congress. Are you thinking that a government shutdown will improve your image? And really, playing chicken to see who veers away at the last moment doesn't look so good either.

 

At some point, people have had enough of this BS. If the government shuts down I suggest that your paychecks, for each and every one of you, stop, and I further suggest that they do not restart. It's simple. Enough is enough. We will not be deciding who to blame, you can all go home. You can do this job or you can't, and the evidence is that you can't.

 

Sorry, I have to rant a little here. Everything from here on is hyperbole.

 

This is EXACTLY what broke Washington. And by "this" I mean voters with Ken's attitude. Let me explain. Most members of congress are in safe seats. They won't get thrown out of congress, no matter how low congress' approval ratings are. They only care about whether their party will get more seats at the next election, and whether their party's presidential candidate will win the next presidential election.

 

When Republicans started threatening government shutdowns during the Obama presidency, and started blocking everything, and caused a government shutdown in 2013, they made a clear calculation. They knew voters would get upset. But they knew voters would just react with the silly "Throw them all out" tantrum. Which would hit about as many Democrats as Republicans in Congress, and would hopefully swing their odds in favour of regaining the presidency.

 

Mitch McConnell is the master of that strategy. His cynicism in destroying US governing norms is quite unprecedented. But he got a huge tax cut and a stolen Supreme Court seat to show for it. And he became so cynical because he correctly calculated that the vast majority of swing voters (most of whom are fairly uninformed) would be too dumb/lazy to look who is exactly to blame, and instead just react with Ken's silly tantrum.

 

There is a saying that in a democracy, we get the representatives that we deserve.

[Winstonm]

The House Intelligence Committee link to the Fusion GPS transcript is not working. Anyone know why that link failed or where the transcript can be read?

[jjbrr]

The House Intelligence Committee link to the Fusion GPS transcript is not working. Anyone know why that link failed or where the transcript can be read?

This link works for me as of about 7:00 EST

[Winstonm]

This link works for me as of about 7:00 EST

Yes, it seems to be loading now. Thanks. :)

[kenberg]

I see the House has passed a funding bill, but it can be, maybe will be, blocked in the Senate. It has been noted that my previous proposal was more emotional than practical and I agree. But emotion can then lead to some practical ideas. For example. There are primary challenges, there are retirements, there are deaths and resignations. I suggest that every person who comes before the voters in a primary be asked to describe circumstances under which they could imagine themselves voting to block funding of the government in order to get their way. During most of my lifetime, I believe the answer would have been "under no circumstances". It would have been regarded as a pointless question. Obviously this is no longer the case. So it is a fair question and I believe an interviewer should push for an explicit answer. Yes people lie, we have all noticed that, but forcing an answer could still have a good effect.

 

I think many Republicans and many Democrats would like to see the answer pushed back in the direction of "under no circumstances".

 

I hope we can move in that direction I have always had friends who are Republicans and friends who are Democrats. I suspect most, quite possible all, of them would agree with this as a goal, and with that level of agreement we might be able to bring it about. Not by tomorrow, unfortunately.

 

Winston, I knew about the parable of the Scorpion and the Frog.Your link says it goes back to 1954 which is about when I heard it, I was still in high school. Only I heard it with a slight variant, with the location of the river being relevant. As they were both sinking, the explanation for why this was happening was "We are in the Middle East". Perhaps that could be changed to "Because we are in Congress".

[RedSpawn]

I see the House has passed a funding bill, but it can be, maybe will be, blocked in the Senate. It has been noted that my previous proposal was more emotional than practical and I agree. But emotion can the lead to some practical ideas. For example. There are primary challenges, there are retirements, there are deaths and resignations. I suggest that every person who comes before the voters in a primary be asked to describe circumstances under which they could imagine themselves voting to block funding of the government in order to get their way. During most of my lifetime, I believe the answer would have been "under no circumstances". It would have been regarded as a pointless question. Obviously this is no longer the case. So it is a fair question and I believe an interviewer should push for an explicit answer. Yes people lie, we have all noticed that, but forcing an answer could still have a good effect.

 

I think many Republicans and many Democrats would like to see the answer pushed back in the direction of "under no circumstances".

 

I hope we can move in that direction I have always had friends who are Republicans and friends who are Democrats. I suspect most, quite possible all, of them would agree with this as a goal, and with that level of agreement we might be able to bring it about. Not by tomorrow, unfortunately.

 

Winston, I knew about the parable of the Scorpion and the Frog.Your link says it goes back to 1954 which is about when I heard it, I was still in high school. Only I heard it with a slight variant, with the location of the river being relevant. As they were both sinking, the explanation for why this was happening was "We are in the Middle East". Perhaps that could be changed to "Because we are in Congress".

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/18/house-republicans-plan-vote-avert-shutdown-but-trump-may-have-made-harder/1043694001/

 

Mmmm, hmmm

[RedSpawn]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/porn-star-was-paid-130000-to-keep-quiet-about-a-relationship-with-trump-wall-street-journal-reports/2018/01/12/fde75e72-f7ef-11e7-91af-31ac729add94_story.html?utm_term=.79ebaabda4dd

 

Say what? Porn star "hush money"?

[Winstonm]

From the New York Times:

That $30 million, however, is just what the N.R.A. spent on the presidential race. It also backed other candidates, reportedly spending $55 million overall. The organization helped Republicans cement control of Congress. If it did so with Russia’s assistance, the whole party is implicated.

 

Of course, the citizenry has no way of knowing where any of that money came from. But the F.B.I. almost certainly does. We’re far from understanding what role, if any, the N.R.A. played in helping Russia help Trump. But a scandal that encompasses both the Trump campaign and the right’s most powerful lobby would be bigger than most people imagined before Thursday.

 

“In terms of what the Russians are doing in the United States, it’s far broader than just the Trump campaign,” Schiff told me. “In that sense when people think that the Russian intervention was just about tipping the scales to one of the candidates in 2016, they’re thinking far too narrowly.”

[jjbrr]

"the whole party is implicated"

 

no *****, sherlock.

[Winstonm]

"the whole party is implicated"

 

no *****, sherlock.

 

Now we might understand why so many Republicans are trying to dismantle the Russia investigation. It is quite a loop if the final stop can be proven: 1) A Russian mobster who works for Putin, who has strict gun ownership controls, starts a pro-U.S.-second-amendment group in Russia, 2) makes connections with the NRA in the U.S., and 3) ends up funneling money into the NRA to support far right candidates in the U.S.

 

We know the first two occurred. Now it is up to the FBI to determine what is behind door #3.

 

For those unfamiliar with this discussion, here is the original McClatchy article about the FBI investigation into possible Russia-NRA ties to campaign money.

[barmar]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/porn-star-was-paid-130000-to-keep-quiet-about-a-relationship-with-trump-wall-street-journal-reports/2018/01/12/fde75e72-f7ef-11e7-91af-31ac729add94_story.html?utm_term=.79ebaabda4dd

 

Say what? Porn star "hush money"?

Where have you been? This has been all over the news all week.

 

If this were any other presidency, it would be one of his worst scandals (on par with the Monica Lewinsky affair). In Trump's case, it's just something to laugh off.

[Winstonm]

This link works for me as of about 7:00 EST

 

Reading that testimony brought to mind The Godfather, where Marlon Brando is lamenting with his son Michael that he never wanted him in the business but to become possibly Senator Corleone.

 

Now we have worse...President Fredo.

 

If you take the position that Simpson shows in his testimony that Fredo has been involved with the Russian mafia since shortly after Putin took control of Russia, and that Fedo later, with Putin's help, could use Russian mobsters as pre-buyers of condos in order to get fincancing, then it becomes plausible why a 4-time bankrupt businessman could get a piece of a project for only selling his name - bit it wasn't really the name, but access to pre-buyers he was paid for. The name fame came as result of the money laundering and bank fraud operations and that is the kompromat that Putin has over Fredo. And Fredo is now trying to use the U.S. government like a criminal empire to enrich himself as much as possible.

 

If you look at the situation in that light, President Fredo's actions make some kind of sense.

[Winstonm]

These people have gone stark raving mad - what are they so terrified about?

WASHINGTON ― House Republicans spent the end of the workweek telling everyone who would listen that the American people must be allowed to see a top-secret four-page document that could bring an end to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 elections.

 

One thing about that document: Republican staffers wrote it

[RedSpawn]

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/19/politics/government-shutdown-trump-congress-latest/index.html

 

SHUTDOWN. As expected, we have too many man-children in Congress. These codgers refuse to grow up!

 

We can't get compromise in Congress. We can't get a federal budget approved to stop this kicking of the can down the road with appeasing spending bills. We are so much better than this.

[kenberg]

At some point there will be a deal and government will be funded again. We should not praise the people that make this deal. Rather, Republican leaders and Democratic leaders should stand jointly in front of the cameras and explain what there is in the content of the agreement that prevented the deal from being made in early January or, for that matter, last year. They cannot be allowed to explain it by blaming someone else. They must explain why, based on the content of the agreement, it could not have been done earlier.

 

Of course such an explanation does not, and will not, exist. But then they must, before they leave the stage, acknowledge this fact. The voters can then do as they wish with this information. But absolutely there should be no praise for those who come to an agreement in February that is in no way different in content from an agreement that could have been made in December.

[Winstonm]

At some point there will be a deal and government will be funded again. We should not praise the people that make this deal. Rather, Republican leaders and Democratic leaders should stand jointly in front of the cameras and explain what there is in the content of the agreement that prevented the deal from being made in early January or, for that matter, last year. They cannot be allowed to explain it by blaming someone else. They must explain why, based on the content of the agreement, it could not have been done earlier.

 

Of course such an explanation does not, and will not, exist. But then they must, before they leave the stage, acknowledge this fact. The voters can then do as they wish with this information. But absolutely there should be no praise for those who come to an agreement in February that is in no way different in content from an agreement that could have been made in December.

 

The reason a deal could not be made is Fredo and his viewership base - he has to continue to play an uninformed lunatic in order to keep them watching, he promised them a wall, and by God, a wall there must be! If he suddenly becomes a rational actor, the base will tune him out and look for another show to watch.

 

If you want to look for who in Congress to blame, look no further than those Republicans in Congress who are protective of Fredo, for they are complicit in all his excesses.

[ldrews]

Big List of 177 Trump accomplishments in 364 days

 

http://www.wnd.com/2017/11/4621979/

[y66]

Guest post from Matt Yglesias at Vox:

 

Back in November 2016, the Electoral College, in its wisdom, selected a man to be president who 61 percent of voters felt was unqualified and 63 percent felt lacked the right temperament to be president. The voters were, of course, correct about Donald Trump, and the government shutdown stems from those facts.

 

Trump set the current crisis in motion last September when he revoked Barack Obama’s executive order that protected DREAMERs — young unauthorized immigrants brought to the US as children — from deportation, but he offered no guidance about what he wanted to happen next, other than for Congress to do ... something.

 

The lack of clarity emboldened immigration hardliners in the GOP caucus while simultaneously raising hopes for a deal among immigration reformers. But Trump’s intervening behavior wound up salting the earth by leaving everyone feeling that he might screw them over at any moment. Consequently, nobody is quite sure exactly who is shutting down the government or what it is the White House is trying to achieve by rejecting a bipartisan proposal that would avert a shutdown.

 

The country has mostly coped with Trump’s inability to do his job by outsourcing governance to congressional GOP leadership. But congressional Republicans are less unified on immigration than on most issues, and Trump is more invested in immigration than on most issues. Consequently, his actual personal leadership as president of the United States is critical to moving the system forward.

 

But the mere fact that the circumstances require Trump to act like a real president doesn’t change the fact that he’s a lazy, ill-informed conspiracy theorist prone to tweeting cryptic pronouncements about delicate policy issues based on Fox & Friends segments.

 

Welcome to 2018.

 

As a candidate, Donald Trump loudly and frequently promised to “build a wall” on the US-Mexico border and “make Mexico pay” for it.

 

These ideas never made any sense, but once Trump won the election, turning them into some kind of actual policy imperative became important to the overall Republican Party. Mexico, of course, was not going to pay for the wall, but the White House got behind the conceit that Congress could appropriate funds for it that Trump would assert was some kind of advance on hypothetical future Mexican repayment.

 

Still, this left the problem of actually getting the money. Congressional appropriations require 60 Senate votes, and many Republicans were lukewarm on the wall concept all along, so last spring, Trump was considering the option of forcing a shutdown to try to get his way.

 

This was a bad idea, and other Republicans seem to have talked Trump out of it.

 

But the problem remained: how to get Democratic votes for the wall? One natural way to do it would be to give Democrats a big legislative win of their own. But precisely because congressional Republicans were lukewarm on the wall all along, they would revolt at the idea of giving away policy concessions of any real value.

 

Then came an idea: By canceling the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Trump could generate new leverage for himself and then give Democrats concessions on the DREAMers (leaving Republicans no worse off than they were before) in exchange for some kind of wall money.

 

Trump changed his mind about his goals

Trump has deeply hawkish instincts on immigration, seemingly driven by his personal and ideological racism, but he’s ill-informed on pretty much all subjects, including immigration.

 

And the basic problem with a DREAMers-for-wall swap is that the wall is a dumb idea that wouldn’t actually accomplish anything to reduce immigration to the United States. And if legislative protections for DREAMers ended up creating a path to citizenship, it might actually end up increasing immigration, since the new citizens could sponsor visas for relatives.

 

Consequently, better-informed immigration hawks like White House senior adviser Stephen Miller and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) began working with Chief of Staff John Kelly to avoid the kind of deal that Trump had repeatedly suggested — and even at times explicitly agreed to in general terms.

 

The problem is that while hawks successfully scuttled a deal — souring Trump on a bipartisan compromise authored by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) — they haven’t managed to put forward any plausible ideas of their own.

 

Instead of negotiating positions, hawks have put forth a comprehensive wish list for entirely transforming the American immigration system. They say they want billions of dollars in new border security funding plus the full RAISE Act vision of cutting legal immigration in half while ending family and diversity visas in favor of an exclusive focus on job offers and educational attainment.

 

This is what Trump, whether wittingly or unwittingly, means with his various asides about the perils of “lotteries” and “chain migration.”

 

Everyone is, obviously, entitled to their views about immigration policy. But there’s just no way Democrats are going to agree to these changes as the price to pay for helping the DREAMers. There’s a total disproportion between the scale of the asks and the significance of the DACA issue. To get sweeping changes in the immigration system enacted, conservatives would need to come to the table with some kind of help for the entire population of long-settled undocumented immigrants — precisely the kind of comprehensive immigration reform they’ve been eschewing for years.

 

The result is that if Democrats blink and cave to Trump on the shutdown question, Trump himself is going to get none of the policy changes he desires — no change to the diversity visas, no change to family visas, and no wall money. In exchange, he’ll get to start deporting DREAMers, but the actual capacity of American immigration courts to carry out deportations is already maxed out.

 

Losing legal status will harm DREAMers in concrete ways, forcing some out of active-duty military service and others out of legitimate work and educational activities. But people who’ve grown up and spent their whole lives in the United States aren’t going to “self-deport,” and crowding the deportation pipeline with sympathetic DREAMer cases won’t help immigration hawks’ cause.

 

Maybe Trump doesn’t care and thinks hurting DREAMers is its own reward. But if so, he ought to at least clarify that and help the country move on.

 

The perversity of the current situation is that Trump has always publicly maintained that he wants to do something to help the DREAMers — repeatedly using the word “love” in this context.

 

That, for obvious reasons, has raised expectations among Democrats and immigration activists that there is a deal to be struck.

 

If Trump doesn’t actually want a deal, then he can probably prevail on the narrow issue of the government shutdown. Realistically, Democrats from red states with low Latino and Asian populations aren’t going to hold out forever for the sake of a futile effort to help DACA recipients. Indeed, if Trump had signaled implacable opposition months ago, there probably would be no standoff today. Alternatively, if he does want a deal, he needs to start seriously engaging with the process and put some concrete principles on the table.

 

Instead, by veering from handshake deals with “Chuck and Nancy” to profane rants about “shithole” countries, Trump has confused everyone and brought the political system to the breaking point.