Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[unclevlad]

Scalise admits he can't win, and withdraws as speaker-nominee.

 

Almost no chance there'll be a speaker before next week...and it feels like even end of next week is closer to a pipe dream than a likely timeline.

[Lord Liaden]

The message to take from all this, and to spread to all GOP supporters, is that the Republican Party has proven they are incapable of governing. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of their "policies," they have not gotten and cannot get their act together enough to actually do anything, about anything.

[unclevlad]

I'd take it a slightly different direction:  the "Republican Party" isn't a party, not any more.  We have a de facto 3-party system, at least, with the Trumpist faction hiding inside the older structure...and using it to their benefit.  BTW, this is also why the historical perspective I posted is important, IMO.

 

But we arrive at the same point.  

[Lord Liaden]

Historically that is very important, but in terms of messaging -- and I can't help but disparage some people by saying this -- Trumpists have demonstrated that they can't appreciate such distinctions. The message has to be kept simple and to the point.

[unclevlad]

From NYT analytical article this evening:

 

Quote

House Republicans, meanwhile, are consumed with an extended struggle of personal grievance, petty beefs, political payback and rampant attention-seeking that on Thursday night forced Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana to withdraw as his party’s candidate for speaker. The tumult has sidelined Congress at a critical moment and rendered the Capitol a bastion of G.O.P. dysfunction. The spectacle of their infighting is even more glaring at a moment of international crisis, a fact not lost on Republicans themselves as they remain unable to settle on a speaker who could put the House back in business.

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

There's a faction in the Republican Party that's fine with the government shutting down, with it failing in its duties. They aren't there to fulfill their oaths of office, they're there to inflame, to rabble-rouse, to get clicks on social media, because they think that's their route to power; and because it makes them feel strong and important. They couldn't care less about the impact of their actions on the American people. To quote Michael Caine from The Dark Knight: "Some men just want to watch the world burn."

[Old Man]

22 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

There's a faction in the Republican Party that's fine with the government shutting down, with it failing in its duties. They aren't there to fulfill their oaths of office, they're there to inflame, to rabble-rouse, to get clicks on social media, because they think that's their route to power; and because it makes them feel strong and important. They couldn't care less about the impact of their actions on the American people. To quote Michael Caine from The Dark Knight: "Some men just want to watch the world burn."

 

It's not that they don't care, it's that they (and their donors) fully intend to cripple the federal government.  It's their primary goal.  The "dysfunction" just serves as cover for them to achieve that goal without taking direct responsibility.  147 of them voted to overthrow the government, and people think they care about a little "dysfunction"?

[Lord Liaden]

With that conclusion I must respectfully disagree. Corporations backing the more stable Republican legislators don't want to cripple the government, they want to subvert it to their purpose. That's the essence of fascism, government and business as allies, controlling the means of production, and the labor force. Government's mechanisms of control are far too useful to cripple. Right-wing business donors, and the media that serve them, have expressed growing displeasure with the antics of the extremists in the House. An American government shutdown will provoke uncertainty and instability in money markets across the globe. Those things affect profits.

 

That's one reason why I maintain that the MAGAts in the House are playing a different game. They're posturing for the most rabidly vocal of their followers on social media, apparently under the belief that clicks and supportive comments equal votes. They want to spawn fear and outrage, because those things got them where they are. I don't think most of them are working toward the GOP's long-term plan. They don't have patience, and they don't think ahead.

[Lawnmower Boy]

With all due respect to the troublemakers of the GOP, no parliamentary party can govern with a majority as slim as the Congressional Republican Party enjoys. It is asking more than is human for the whole membership of the caucus to conform to a self-denying ordinance to not use the power this situation gives them. 

 

Since there is a Speaker right now, any dysfunction in the House is the consequence of a collective decision that the "9/11 Speaker" isn't a real Speaker. Ignore that qualm, and things are fine. Failing that, the traditional solution is a Grand Coalition, and what's holding that up is the very traditional argument over which party the Speaker should come from. It's not as much fun as it is in a legislature with more than two political parties, but it's right there to be had. I'd be a lot more worried about the Supreme Court, if I were an American.  

[Old Man]

7 hours ago, Lawnmower Boy said:

I'd be a lot more worried about the Supreme Court, if I were an American.  

 

Way ahead of you, pal. 

[Lord Liaden]

Palestinians flee northern Gaza after Israel orders 1 million to evacuate as ground attack looms.

 

Hamas is urging civilians to stay, saying this is a bluff. Palestinian civilians have to choose whether to remain where they are and risk being caught in the fire, or flee and perhaps end up as homeless refugees. Either way, trying to move a million people on short notice will cause a humanitarian crisis. Many Palestinians fear no place in Gaza will be safe.

 

It would not surprise me if this move is a prelude to annexation of northern Gaza by Israel. It's been a long time since they took territory this way, but that isn't unprecedented.

[unclevlad]

Second verse, same as the first...

 

 

This time it's Jim Jordan, but it seems likely this one will never get off the ground either.  The vote was 124-81;  moderate Austin Scott ran against Jordan, to give face to the anti-Jordan wing.  And that's big enough to suggest there's no chance to swing enough votes for Jordan to win on the House floor.  

[Ranxerox]

Hamas In Plain Sight For Their Attack On Israel

[unclevlad]

House postpones a floor vote for Speaker, basically acknowledging too many moderates won't accept him.

 

The merry-go-round continues, with no indication it'll stop any time soon.

 

EDIT:  saw a new detail.  Had it gone to the floor this evening, 55 Republicans would not vote for Jordan.

[Lord Liaden]

Trying to find a leader in the House GOP today, is like looking among the blind for a one-eyed man.

[DShomshak]

19 hours ago, unclevlad said:

This time it's Jim Jordan, but it seems likely this one will never get off the ground either.  The vote was 124-81;  moderate Austin Scott ran against Jordan, to give face to the anti-Jordan wing.  And that's big enough to suggest there's no chance to swing enough votes for Jordan to win on the House floor.  

All Thngs Considered ran a brief clip of Austin Scott, and he used LL's line: Some GOP members aren't in Congress to make law, they're there to make appearances on Fox and collect social media likes. So it's not just our colleague or outside pundits thinking this: Exasperated GOP members think so, too.

 

(I have no idea what Austin Scott's own policy preferences are, but at least he has some? He He knows and accepts what his job is?)

 

Dean Shomshak

[unclevlad]

My take, based on what I read, is that Scott wasn't making a serious bid to win.  Apparently, in the caucus, no one was stepping forward to oppose Jordan...which also reinforces comments that being a Republican Speaker now is an exercise in masochism...so Scott stepped forward to put the face on the anti-MAGA side.

 

Side note...*was* watching a football game on FS1.  Until...ugh.  A MAGA ad, then maybe a half hour later, a DeSantis ad.  Both nauseating.  Gonna be a long, long, LONG, MISERABLE political season......

[Cygnia]

Trump’s Secret Documents Case Just Got Worse For Him

 

Quote

Ever since investigators pulled a pile of sensitive government documents out of former President Donald Trump’s infamously chandeliered bathroom, a question has loomed over the resulting criminal case: Why on Earth did Trump want those documents, anyway?

Now, prosecutors claim they have the answer. They haven’t publicly explained what it is. But they say they’re confident they can prove it in court.

That matters, because Trump’s intent is far from an academic question. Legal experts have long said that while the criminal case against Trump for allegedly violating the Espionage Act by bringing boxes full of classified documents all the way to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida looks strong, it appeared to have a significant hole at its center—in the shape of Trump’s motive.

Juries like to know why someone committed an alleged crime before they vote to convict. And Trump’s behavior seemed so baffling—he seemed to be taking such huge risks, for an unclear payoff—that the lack of a clear explanation for his behavior could leave lingering questions in jurors’ minds about precisely what happened.

“It’s always easier when you can prove intent, than when you can’t, even in a crime that doesn’t require intent,” said former Watergate prosecutor and one-time General Counsel of the U.S. Army, Jill Wine-Banks.

“I think you could make the case without asserting a motive,” she said. “But it’s sure better with it.”

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team wrote in a recent court filing that they intend to prove in court why the documents were moved from the White House to Florida, and “what Trump intended in retaining them.”

 

[csyphrett]

it's obvious why Trump took the documents. he was selling the information for influence or money. The problem has always been proving either one of those.

 

It's like the speculation that Jared Kushner was put in charge of that 2 billion hedge fund because Trump gave the Saudis the list of their enemies and where they lived. No one has looked into it as far as I know, but that's what it looks like to me.  

CES

[Lord Liaden]

With respect, there's another widely circulated and equally valid theory, based on recorded remarks by Trump to people he was showing the documents to: Ego. Trump kept the documents to show off to his cronies that he was so much more important than them, that he had classified sensitive information they could never see. Unless he showed them.

 

The difference between these theories and what the prosecutor's office is saying now, is that they can prove the real reason Trump kept them, in court. And that they will introduce that evidence in court. The motive and intent behind a crime adds to the strength of their case before a jury, even if it isn't strictly necessary under law to prove motive in order to convict.

Edited October 14, 2023 by Lord Liaden

[unclevlad]

Note that the monetary and ego stroke points are not mutually exclusive...on at least one reported occasion, he was presenting the information to donors.

 

That said, given Trump's personality, ithe ego stroke/self-aggrandizement never seems to dip below the surface very far.  There's also stuff he thinks is payback...the remarks about Milley.  That may well be part and parcel of his narcissism, tho.  

 

The key is to get the support to build the tale, more than the details of the tale itself.

[Lord Liaden]

Well said. Human motivations rarely break down to a single factor.

 

Whatever Trump's intent, it's a safe bet that it wasn't for the greater good.

[Twilight]

On 10/13/2023 at 5:41 PM, Ranxerox said:

Hamas In Plain Sight For Their Attack On Israel

They practiced for the attack....in plain sight of Israeli forces and the IDF still didn't see it coming? 😵 I'm not sure how that's even possible? Like the Israelis are always touted as one of the greatest military forces in the world, how are they not competent enough to prepare for an attack that was blatantly being planned before their very eyes?

Edited October 15, 2023 by Twilight

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, Twilight said:

They practiced for the attack....in plain sight of Israeli forces and the IDF still didn't see it coming? 😵 I'm not sure how that's even possible? Like the Israelis are always touted as one of the greatest military forces in the world, how are they not competent enough to prepare for an attack that was blatantly being planned before their very eyes?

 

At this point the question is whether the Netanyahu administration should be removed for incompetence or for deliberate incompetence.  It's that bad.

 

edit: Don't forget that the Egyptians warned Netanyahu personally that Hamas was up to something.

Edited October 15, 2023 by Old Man

[Pattern Ghost]

I saw at least one Israeli official answer this question along the lines of right now they intend to deal with HAMAS, but they'll be asking a lot of questions about how the attack was planned and executed without advanced warning afterward.

 

The training is the least question in my mind; armies train in plain sight of their enemies all the time for intimidation. The fact that they could amass the resources required with all of the associated activities not being detected, and the fact that the entire country wasn't on a high state of alert -- especially near the Gaza border -- during a milestone anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, and the movement of troops out of that area at that time . . . those are all bigger questions to me. Given that the Israeli intelligence apparatus is supposed to be among the best in the world, it's nearly inconceivable that all of this could happen under their noses.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Pattern Ghost