US politics general thread

[RanzB]

I remember reading something similar with Benghazi and the Trump investigations. I may have the figures slightly wrong but it goes something like Benghazi: 4 years, 0 indictments and 0 guilty pleas. Trump investigation: 1.5 years, 32 indictments and 9 guilty pleas.

But m'uh witch hunt

 

[Cray]

consciously letting the enemy kill your servicemen

If that was a crime every general in the history of warfare would be up on charges...

 

[RanzB]

If that was a crime every general in the history of warfare would be up on charges...

Notice how the lefty liberal ignores the part about the investigations coming up with sweet f-all and just proffers more ZH nonsense.

Judge: FCC can’t hide records that may explain net neutrality comment fraud

Lol. This administration is a joke.

 

[Unhappy1]

But m'uh witch hunt

RIGGED WITCH HUNT! NO COLLUSION!!

NO PUPPET... NO PUPPET.

 

[RanzB]

Donald Trump Torches Jeff Sessions: ‘I Don’t Have An Attorney General’

President Donald Trump has issued a new line of attack on Attorney General Jeff Sessions, telling The Hill, “I don’t have an attorney general.”

“It’s very sad,” Trump told Hill.TV in an interview published Wednesday. “I’m not happy at the border, I’m not happy with numerous things, not just this.”

The president has long criticized Sessions, an early political supporter who he blames for recusing himself from the FBI investigation into Russian election interference. Sessions stepped aside from the investigation after he failed to disclose during his confirmation hearing meetings he had with the Russian ambassador. The decision eventually led to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller.

Mueller’s investigation has been a source of a pain for the president. Several former Trump aides, including his former campaign chair Paul Manafort, have been charged in connection with the probe. Manafort last week agreed to cooperate with Mueller in what’s seen as a major blow to Trump.


Trump first sparked speculation he might fire Sessions in a July 2017 interview with The New York Times.

“How do you take a job and then recuse yourself?,” he said at the time. “If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but I can’t, you know, I’m not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair, and that’s a mild word, to the president.”

The president also has harshly criticized Sessions for not going after his political enemies, including Hillary Clinton. Recently, Trump suggested the Justice Department investigate a New York Times op-ed written by an anonymous administration official criticizing the president.

Where's Alan and co, I'm sure they should be bitching about government overreach and using the DOJ as your personal attack dogs

 

[Emjay]

Well, the current administration seems less of a train wreck compared to Sanders' mentee.

You don't really have to watch the entire thing. Her answers speak for themselves, and from a left friendly interview with CNN.

 

[cerebus]

Well, the current administration seems less of a train wreck compared to Sanders' mentee.

You don't really have to watch the entire thing. Her answers speak for themselves, and from a left friendly interview with CNN.

Ocasio-Cortez is nobody's economist, that's for sure. However, Tapper's interview method doesn't give her a lot of room to answer; and far from being a left-friendly interviewer, Tapper is notoriously anti-progressive. Here he is spouting basic misinformation on universal healthcare:

The whole premise of his argument is badly flawed, and he later apologized in a half-hearted way.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...admits-cnn-fact-check-medicare-all-was-uh-not

The central falsehood of Tapper's video segment, which he has now promised to correct, was his conflation of the American people and the U.S. government.

Sanders, New York congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and several policy analysts have pointed out that—according to the Koch-funded Mercatus Center study, authored by Chuck Blahous—the American public would save $2 trillion on healthcare under Sanders' Medicare for All plan.

Here's Kyle Kulinski giving a much better response than Ocasio-Cortez, bless her soul:

 

[Emjay]

Ocasio-Cortez is nobody's economist, that's for sure. However, Tapper's interview method doesn't give her a lot of room to answer; and far from being a left-friendly interviewer

The interviewer asked, what is the plan to fund her election promises, and she evaded the answer. It is an open ended question, which should could have literally taken in any direction. Her current plans are to tax the corporate base more and tax the rich more, but that only makes up for USD2 Trillion of the required USD40 Trillion.

She is a fool, and the Democrats are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

[cerebus]

The interviewer asked, what is the plan to fund her election promises, and she evaded the answer. It is an open ended question, which should could have literally taken in any direction. Her current plans are to tax the corporate base more and tax the rich more, but that only makes up for USD2 Trillion of the required USD40 Trillion.

Firstly, as I said, I don't think Ocasio-Cortez is very well versed in practical economics. She frequently falls on her face when it comes to these kinds of questions. She's well-intentioned but she doesn't have a lot of intellectual clout.

Secondly, the video which I posted does address the questions he posed in very specific ways. Obviously you didn't bother to watch it because you responded within a minute of my posting, but it's not like nobody on the left has the competence to address these questions.

She is a fool, and the Democrats are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

You're resorting to ad hominems now. Ocasio-Cortez might not be particularly well versed in economic niceties, but Trump's ignorance on the same matters is staggering and seemingly bottomless.

 

[Unhappy1]

She is a fool, and the Democrats are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

If you think that of Cortez and the Democrats, you must think the Republicans with Trump have gone through the barrel, into the ground and fast heading towards the earths core.

 

[Emjay]

If you think that of Cortez and the Democrats you must think the Republicans with Trump have gone through the barrel, into the ground and fast heading towards the earths core.

No, that was the Democrats and Hillary Clinton.

Firstly, as I said, I don't think Ocasio-Cortez is very well versed in practical economics. She frequently falls on her face when it comes to these kinds of questions. She's well-intentioned but she doesn't have a lot of intellectual clout.

Secondly, the video which I posted does address the questions he posed in very specific ways. Obviously you didn't bother to watch it because you responded within a minute of my posting, but it's not like nobody on the left has the competence to address these questions.

You're resorting to ad hominems now. Ocasio-Cortez might not be particularly well versed in economic niceties, but Trump's ignorance on the same matters is staggering and seemingly bottomless.

I am not asking you how she would fund her campaign promises. The American people should expect their politicians to be able to answer those questions even on a general basis. And I am attacking her on a personal level, because she should not be a politician. She has no idea what she is talking about.

 

[greg0205]

The interviewer asked, what is the plan to fund her election promises, and she evaded the answer. It is an open ended question, which should could have literally taken in any direction. Her current plans are to tax the corporate base more and tax the rich more, but that only makes up for USD2 Trillion of the required USD40 Trillion.

She is a fool, and the Democrats are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

"If I did one mistake with Comey, I should have fired him before I got here. I should have fired him the day I won the primaries." - Donald J Trump

I appreciate you'll need a while to process that one, so I'll just hang about here for your clapback.

 

[cerebus]

I am not asking you how she would fund her campaign promises. The American people should expect their politicians to be able to answer those questions even on a general basis. And I am attacking her on a personal level, because she should not be a politician. She has no idea what she is talking about.

Once again, do you honestly think Trump could answer any of those questions? How do they intend to 'pay' for the trillion dollar deficit they just blew into the budget as a result of the tax cuts that they introduced last year? How are they going to 'pay' for the space force? The border wall? Are they going to continue bailing out American workers who were hurt by the tariffs that they just created for no reason whatsoever?

Nobody sits down with Trump and forces him to answer the question of how he intends to pay for all these ludicrous, morally obscene, moronic ideas he comes up with - so why do you think he has more of a right to be a politician than Ocasio-Cortez?

 

[Emjay]

Same guy that literally wrote a book about how he was in a drunken stupour and did dodgy schit at parties.



So you think her genius plan is to subject herself to this lynch mob and vilification for political reasons, given that she knows criminal prosecution isn't at all likely either way?

And she concocted therapist notes from 2012, and told her friends about it last year, and went to a lawyer in June as part of this political plot, before it was even known that Kennedy would retire?

At no point in this do you stop to think it's possible that a powerful dude is lying about what he did? Given that he's already lied a lot, publicly, because he's clearly ambitious.

We haven't even properly delved into his history working for sex pest former judge Kozinski and what he potentially knows about that. It's very murky at the moment, and Republicans aren't interested in finding out more, of course.



Exactly. Smeared and attacked from all angles, the whole right wing media machine gone into overdrive to attack her. Doxxed to hell and back, other people with similar names doxxed and their careers derailed, like a different professor with a similar name who had her 'Ratemyprofessor' destroyed by right wing trolls, etc.

Yashar Ali mentioned a woman who contacted him regarding a sexual assault by a current senior government official, and how she got in touch with him again as this unfolded, saying 'look, this is why people stay quiet'.



Given that he lied five times to the Senate already, and lied in his very first comments as SCOTUS nominee, it's not exactly difficult to believe he'd lie about this.

Do you think that this man's life should be completely derailed because a woman made some accusations against him, which accusations (not even minor details such as where the incident took place, the date, etc) cannot be verified? I was not even alive when this happened. It was over 36 years ago.

And, do you approve of the Senator Feinstein sitting on this news for 8 weeks (iirc) before letting it loose just as the hearings should have concluded?

 

[Emjay]

Once again, do you honestly think Trump could answer any of those questions? How do they intend to 'pay' for the trillion dollar deficit they just blew into the budget as a result of the tax cuts that they introduced last year? How are they going to 'pay' for the space force? The border wall? Are they going to continue bailing out American workers who were hurt by the tariffs that they just created for no reason whatsoever. Nobody sits down with Trump and forces him to answer the question of how he intends to pay for all these ludicrous, morally obscene, moronic ideas he comes up with - so why do you think he has more of a right to be a politician than Ocasio-Cortez?

I am sure he can't. His knowledge on tariffs is very incorrect. Never said he was.

So, whataboutisims are allowed now?

 

[Unhappy1]

I am not asking you how she would fund her campaign promises. The American people should expect their politicians to be able to answer those questions even on a general basis. And I am attacking her on a personal level, because she should not be a politician. She has no idea what she is talking about.

Perhaps she should just tell them Mexico will pay for it, im sure you will be satisfied with that.

 

[cerebus]

I am sure he can't. His knowledge on tariffs is very incorrect. Never said he was.

So, whataboutisims are allowed now?

And I am attacking her on a personal level, because she should not be a politician. She has no idea what she is talking about.

How does that statement not apply equally to Trump as to Ocasio-Cortez, by your own admission?

 

[Unhappy1]

No, that was the Democrats and Hillary Clinton.

I hate Clinton but the fact you say no to Trump is revealing.

 

[greg0205]

The interviewer asked, what is the plan to fund her election promises, and she evaded the answer. It is an open ended question, which should could have literally taken in any direction. Her current plans are to tax the corporate base more and tax the rich more, but that only makes up for USD2 Trillion of the required USD40 Trillion.

She is a fool, and the Democrats are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

re Florence:
"One of the wettest we’ve ever seen from the standpoint of water" - Donald J Trump

Take your time on that one too.

 

[greg0205]

The interviewer asked, what is the plan to fund her election promises, and she evaded the answer. It is an open ended question, which should could have literally taken in any direction. Her current plans are to tax the corporate base more and tax the rich more, but that only makes up for USD2 Trillion of the required USD40 Trillion.

She is a fool, and the Democrats are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

"I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words." - Donald J Trump