Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[DShomshak]

I am sorry I cannot post a link: My dial-up AOHell is more than usually balky today.

 

So I'd be grateful if someone could post a link to Mary-Louise Kelly's interview with Mike Pompeo that just aired on All Things Considered. ATC was careful to specify that they aired the interview without any editing or interruptions. Pompeo bragged about how successful the Trump administration was at pushing Iran to the brink of capitulation, in contrast to the Obama administration's appeasement -- though he wouldn't say how the US now could actually make good on its vow that Iran would never get nuclear weapons. When Ms. Kelly changed the subject to Ukraine, he said he'd only agreed to talk about Iran, despite Ms. Kelly saying his staff had agreed to that subject as well. Again, he puffed about Trump vs. Obama.

 

Then Ms. Kelly asked about how Pompeo's State Department treated Ambassador Yovanovitch. Pompeo insisted he has always stood up for all his diplomatic staff. Ms. Kelly called him on it: Point to your public statement, she asked, where you defended her. After the second time she asked Pompeo to back up his claim, he walked out.

 

But there's a coda. Ms. Kelly recounted how Pompeo's assistant then took her to an off-air talk with Pompeo -- off the air, but no one asked her to keep it off the record. Pompeo spent several minutes shouting angrily at her, using the F-word. He also asked if she thought the American people cared about Ukraine, and dared her to find Ukraine on a map. She could.

 

Sounds like Trump has found a true soulmate here.

 

Dean Shomshak

[DShomshak]

I am sorry I cannot post a link: My dial-up AOHell is more than usually balky today.

 

So I'd be grateful if someone could post a link to Mary-Louise Kelly's interview with Mike Pompeo that just aired on All Things Considered. ATC was careful to specify that they aired the interview without any editing or interruptions. Pompeo bragged about how successful the Trump administration was at pushing Iran to the brink of capitulation, in contrast to the Obama administration's appeasement -- though he wouldn't say how the US now could actually make good on its vow that Iran would never get nuclear weapons. When Ms. Kelly changed the subject to Ukraine, he said he'd only agreed to talk about Iran, despite Ms. Kelly saying his staff had agreed to that subject as well. Again, he puffed about Trump vs. Obama.

 

Then Ms. Kelly asked about how Pompeo's State Department treated Ambassador Yovanovitch. Pompeo insisted he has always stood up for all his diplomatic staff. Ms. Kelly called him on it: Point to your public statement, she asked, where you defended her. After the second time she asked Pompeo to back up his claim, he walked out.

 

But there's a coda. Ms. Kelly recounted how Pompeo's assistant then took her to an off-air talk with Pompeo -- off the air, but no one asked her to keep it off the record. Pompeo spent several minutes shouting angrily at her, using the F-word. He also asked if she thought the American people cared about Ukraine, and dared her to find Ukraine on a map. She could.

 

Sounds like Trump has found a true soulmate here.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Old Man]

Transcript of the on-air NPR interview.  I can't find a transcript of the post-interview meltdown, but this story touches on it.

[DShomshak]

Followup! Today's ATC reports that Pompeo reacted to Mary-Louise Kelly's interview, and report on his subsequent meltdown, by accusing her of lying: That she hadn't really told his staff she'd ask about Ukraine, and that she had actually agreed to talk with him, alone, off the record. (He did not dispute her account of his profanity-laced rant, though.) And of course he said it was just one more case of the media's psychotic hatred of the Trump administration.

 

So the ATC newsroom invited NPR's CEO, John Lansing, to respond to Pompeo. Mr. Lansing expressed full confidence in Ms. Kelly as one of the country's most respected and professional journalists, Oh, and that she has the email chain with Pompeo's staff, setting up the interview, in which she says and they agree that she will ask about Ukraine.

 

This is all a bit familiar to me from my late father's stories about his work as an investigative reporter for the Tacoma News Tribune. More than once, he offended locally prominent people who threatened to sue him and the paper for libel. His response was always the same: "Go ahead." They never did, or at least they never won. The threats never stopped him, or the TNT, from running a story.

 

So if Mr. Pompeo believes Mary-Louise Kelly lied, twice, on air, about him and his office... he should sue. Proving in court that a major news organization lied through its teeth would certainly be feather in the Trump administration's cap. But he won't, just like the Trump administration has never sued for libel despite all their proclamations that the news media are lying. Because they know they will lose.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Badger]

On 1/22/2020 at 11:18 AM, Hermit said:

 

In some areas, I am to the right of Sanders. But we've veered so far off to the right... as in, perfectly honorable and good Republicans are now considered RINOS or Lib lovers, that I think the country needs a hard jerk to the left to course correct back to the middle. My hope is that Sanders is the guy to do that. 

 

When I hear Biden has the lead, it always seems to be 'okay, he's safe' but I don't feel any enthusiasm for him. Maybe that's my bias and folks are shaking pom poms for him... but safe doesn't motivate folks to get excited enough to vote.

 

 

Disagree,  with they way the Dems seem to be eating their own, RINO style, we need a good squish to the center.

[Tywyll]

7 hours ago, Badger said:

 

Disagree,  with they way the Dems seem to be eating their own, RINO style, we need a good squish to the center.

There is no center in American politics any more. You would have to drag all politics so far to the left to see the center again it will never happen I fear.

[Zeropoint]

By world standards, Bernie Sanders IS centrist.

 

Feel the Bern!

[megaplayboy]

We're going to need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to expose all the misdeeds of the current administration, even if it's only limited to one term.  I will be furious if the next administration just quietly drops all pretense of holding them accountable.  

[Badger]

Just so long as you are aware, that the chances of him not being President at this time next year are a bit low.  And that you'll likely have to wait at least 5 years to see anything happen.  (and if anything, I've learned rarely are authorities anxious to punish offending politicians)

[Badger]

15 hours ago, Tywyll said:

There is no center in American politics any more. You would have to drag all politics so far to the left to see the center again it will never happen I fear.

 

Well, not really interested in the world's political average for this exercise.  More interested in an American center, something more basic that the country can grasp*.  To be honest, if Bernie is the "center", I definitely want to tilt at least a bit right.  (though, I do respect the fact he is one of the more or less few honest politicians, to be fair.  Just wants to go a bridge or 2 further than I am willing)

 

Note: Meant to quote Zeropoint's post just below in actuality.

 

*I'm thinking more of the mean/average for the views of the American as a whole, not the dual ends of the spectrum that the average politician tends to want move towards turning the country into a half-broken see-saw with 2 fat kids. 

[Tywyll]

4 hours ago, Badger said:

 

Well, not really interested in the world's political average for this exercise.  More interested in an American center, something more basic that the country can grasp*.  To be honest, if Bernie is the "center", I definitely want to tilt at least a bit right.  (though, I do respect the fact he is one of the more or less few honest politicians, to be fair.  Just wants to go a bridge or 2 further than I am willing)

 

Note: Meant to quote Zeropoint's post just below in actuality.

 

*I'm thinking more of the mean/average for the views of the American as a whole, not the dual ends of the spectrum that the average politician tends to want move towards turning the country into a half-broken see-saw with 2 fat kids. 

 

I actually think you'll find that many American's are far more leftist than you think. Maybe not yourself, but a lot of people want things that more rational 1st World countries take for granted. But once tribalism gets in the mix they don't actually vote for the things they want.

 

Or, even when they do, the politicians don't follow through (even the liberal ones). I read a study that showed that congress and the senate historically only passed around 30% of legislation that Americans want and/or demand. The rest is stuff of interest only to themselves, the lobbies, or whatever. It's not the stuff that people are demanding or poll for. And this has almost always been the case, its not a new phenomenom. This is why activism and civil disruption (marches, protests, etc) is so important. Only when an issue can't be ignored can you really hope for your demands to fall into that 30%.

[Pariah]

"The river tells no lies, but the dishonest man, standing on the shore, still hears them." -Oma Desala

 

After Contentious Interview, Pompeo Publicly Accuses NPR Journalist Of Lying To Him

[DShomshak]

On 1/27/2020 at 1:25 AM, Tywyll said:

 

Or, even when they do, the politicians don't follow through (even the liberal ones). I read a study that showed that congress and the senate historically only passed around 30% of legislation that Americans want and/or demand. The rest is stuff of interest only to themselves, the lobbies, or whatever. It's not the stuff that people are demanding or poll for. And this has almost always been the case, its not a new phenomenom. T

 

I wonder how one would measure this?

 

Even if true (however one defines "legislation that Americans want"), it isn't necessarily an outrage. First, many laws passed may deal with technical issues that most people don't know or care about. (Frex, I am certainly not qualified to hold an opinion about the arcana of tax policy.) OTOH, I can imagine Congress receiving petitons for laws that would be silly or loopy, such as the legendary 19th-century legislator (though I think this was state, not federal) who tried to get "pi" legally defined as exactly 3, because a Bible passage implied this.

 

One reason to have a legislature, after all, instead of relying on direct democracy, is to pass the laws people need rather than the ones they want at the moment. Even if that means ladling sugar to special interests, that may be the price of keeping the system running -- as long as it doesn't get too extreme, or powerful groups feel they are barred forever from sucking at the teat of public money.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

Even in classical Athens, where major decisions were settled by vote of all adult male citizens attending the public Assembly, they still appointed administrators, magistrates, military commanders, diplomats, and other officials specializing in particular areas of expertise. The vast majority of us are trying to live our lives, and don't have time, and to be honest, inclination, to educate ourselves about every issue and make decisions about them. Universal direct democracy is like communism: it would work if every member of society accepted its principles and lived up to their responsibilities under them. But that isn't human nature.

[Badger]

On 1/27/2020 at 4:25 AM, Tywyll said:

 

I actually think you'll find that many American's are far more leftist than you think. Maybe not yourself, but a lot of people want things that more rational 1st World countries take for granted. But once tribalism gets in the mix they don't actually vote for the things they want.

 

Or, even when they do, the politicians don't follow through (even the liberal ones). I read a study that showed that congress and the senate historically only passed around 30% of legislation that Americans want and/or demand. The rest is stuff of interest only to themselves, the lobbies, or whatever. It's not the stuff that people are demanding or poll for. And this has almost always been the case, its not a new phenomenom. This is why activism and civil disruption (marches, protests, etc) is so important. Only when an issue can't be ignored can you really hope for your demands to fall into that 30%.

 

Oh no doubt it is trending left.   But, to think it is anywhere near the left-level that Europe is might be an over-estimation (at the moment).  I am aware that the "center" might be conservative to moderate Democrat level.  Possibly, anyway.  50/50 on that, really.  We do tend to distribute voters into liberal vs. conservative vs independent.  And independents kind of go all over the range of things.  I tend to have more conservative and/or libertarian leanings in a lot of things.   But, that might be on 85% of issues (well I don't know the percentage, but there are a small but significant number of anomalies).      

[Badger]

3 hours ago, DShomshak said:

 

I wonder how one would measure this?

 

Even if true (however one defines "legislation that Americans want"), it isn't necessarily an outrage. First, many laws passed may deal with technical issues that most people don't know or care about. (Frex, I am certainly not qualified to hold an opinion about the arcana of tax policy.) OTOH, I can imagine Congress receiving petitons for laws that would be silly or loopy, such as the legendary 19th-century legislator (though I think this was state, not federal) who tried to get "pi" legally defined as exactly 3, because a Bible passage implied this.

 

One reason to have a legislature, after all, instead of relying on direct democracy, is to pass the laws people need rather than the ones they want at the moment. Even if that means ladling sugar to special interests, that may be the price of keeping the system running -- as long as it doesn't get too extreme, or powerful groups feel they are barred forever from sucking at the teat of public money.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heh, be interested in what Bible passage.  I know the Bible is big on the number 3.  But, I don't remember many of those mentioning anything about circles. 

[Badger]

On 1/27/2020 at 4:25 AM, Tywyll said:

 

I actually think you'll find that many American's are far more leftist than you think. Maybe not yourself, but a lot of people want things that more rational 1st World countries take for granted. But once tribalism gets in the mix they don't actually vote for the things they want.

 

Or, even when they do, the politicians don't follow through (even the liberal ones). I read a study that showed that congress and the senate historically only passed around 30% of legislation that Americans want and/or demand. The rest is stuff of interest only to themselves, the lobbies, or whatever. It's not the stuff that people are demanding or poll for. And this has almost always been the case, its not a new phenomenom. This is why activism and civil disruption (marches, protests, etc) is so important. Only when an issue can't be ignored can you really hope for your demands to fall into that 30%.

 

Anyhow, to finish what I did say, that is what makes tricky figuring out the center, since even in a perfect world we still want "our" side (not saying either of us may be right or wrong understand, just pointing the flaw in my own idea for reaching the center) to be the one consider "closer" to that center.  Just the one thing I have noted is each party currently seems to more interested in carving out the polar opposite of the other's position.   

[Hermit]

“I believe in equality. Equality for everybody. No matter how stupid they are or how superior I am to them.”
― Steve Martin

[TrickstaPriest]

55 minutes ago, Badger said:

Anyhow, to finish what I did say, that is what makes tricky figuring out the center, since even in a perfect world we still want "our" side (not saying either of us may be right or wrong understand, just pointing the flaw in my own idea for reaching the center) to be the one consider "closer" to that center.  Just the one thing I have noted is each party currently seems to more interested in carving out the polar opposite of the other's position.   

 

There is absolutely a psychological bias that makes people think 'reasonably smart people' must agree with them... or the silent majority agrees with them... or both.

 

My fever brain refuses to remember the name of it, though that just be my regular brain.

[Pariah]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Heh, be interested in what Bible passage.  I know the Bible is big on the number 3.  But, I don't remember many of those mentioning anything about circles. 

 

2 Chronicles 4:2, which talks about the furnishing of Solomon's Temple, including a brass basin on the backs on twelve oxen:

 

Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

 

You're welcome!

[Badger]

I might have to diagram that, when I get a motivation to, though, it seems the person who thought up that idea went "hey, 30 divided by 10 equals 3, so must be pie...….somehow".

 

 

[Pariah]

Pi is 3, if you're only keeping one significant figure.

[Old Man]

It's hard to believe I'm saying this, but... I can't wait to hear what John Bolton has to say.

[Lord Liaden]

As far as affecting Trump's future, I'm not sure what Bolton has to say will make any difference. The people who have already decided Trump is guilty, and those to whom that doesn't matter, aren't going to change their positions; and I don't think there are enough undecided who'll be swayed by Bolton's statements, because it's not an issue that's important to them.

[Lee]

Agreed, LL. Given that it takes a 2/3 majority to convict (which is never going to happen) the only hope I have is for just a handful of Republicans to vote to convict so that just more than half of the Senate votes to convict. It won't remove him from office but it will send a message that a majority of people think he's guilty.