BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 1107 Pages +
  • « First
  • 626
  • 627
  • 628
  • 629
  • 630
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?

#12541 User is offline   Chas_P 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,513
  • Joined: 2008-September-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gainesville, GA USA

Posted 2019-April-11, 17:36

 kenberg, on 2019-April-10, 20:30, said:

I am unsure of whether Pete Buttigieg should be president, he is a bit young, 37 I think. But I'm really glad he is in the race. He has a way of getting to the point in a gentle manner. An example from the other day (approximate quote) on religion and his sexuality. "If Mr. Pence has a problem, the problem is not with me but with my Maker". I expect that some religious people might give that some thought, and in fact I know more than a few who have, and largely along that line. The man appears to be a good person, at peace with himself, wanting to work productively. He has a lot of local support and I can see why. All that doesn't mean that he should be president, but it's not nothing. It's good to have an election where people are voting for someone that they really like rather than voting against someone whom they really hate.


The thing I find both interesting and disgusting about the MSM's early storyline on Buttigieg is. "if elected, he would become America's first openly gay President." My reaction is, "So what?" I only care about his policy proposals. If he has ideas that will improve the lives of ALL Americans....red, yellow, black, white....then I'm all for him. I'm not really interested in his party affiliation or how he gets his nuts off.
0

#12542 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,519
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-April-11, 17:46

 Chas_P, on 2019-April-11, 17:36, said:

The thing I find both interesting and disgusting about the MSM's early storyline on Buttigieg is. "if elected, he would become America's first openly gay President." My reaction is, "So what?" I only care about his policy proposals. If he has ideas that will improve the lives of ALL Americans....red, yellow, black, white....then I'm all for him. I'm not really interested in his party affiliation or how he gets his nuts off.

Sounds like the coverage hit a nerve there?

Conservatives in 2009: Do we really need a gay person representing all of America?

Conservatives in 2019: WHO THE ***** CARES WHETHER WE MIGHT HAVE A GAY PRESIDENT?!? REALLY?!? NOBODY CARES!! (RIGHT?)
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#12543 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,488
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2019-April-11, 17:58

 Chas_P, on 2019-April-11, 17:36, said:

The thing I find both interesting and disgusting about the MSM's early storyline on Buttigieg is. "if elected, he would become America's first openly gay President." My reaction is, "So what?" I only care about his policy proposals. If he has ideas that will improve the lives of ALL Americans....red, yellow, black, white....then I'm all for him. I'm not really interested in his party affiliation or how he gets his nuts off.


This is news!

An actual conservative who's not a bigot....
Alderaan delenda est
0

#12544 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,284
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2019-April-11, 18:10

Quote

Ohio Governor Signs Fetal Heartbeat Abortion Bill
Republican Gov. Mike DeWine’s signature makes Ohio the fifth state to ban abortions after the first detectable fetal heartbeat.


This, as clearly as is possible, spells out why the American Taliban (aka Christian Right) has turned its collective eye toward any and all atrocities of Individual-1 and his cabinet cronies - because he makes them feel empowered to create their dreamed about American theocracy.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#12545 User is offline   Chas_P 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,513
  • Joined: 2008-September-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gainesville, GA USA

Posted 2019-April-11, 18:48

 cherdano, on 2019-April-11, 17:46, said:

Sounds like the coverage hit a nerve there?

Conservatives in 2009: Do we really need a gay person representing all of America?

Conservatives in 2019: WHO THE ***** CARES WHETHER WE MIGHT HAVE A GAY PRESIDENT?!? REALLY?!? NOBODY CARES!! (RIGHT?)


I didn't care in 2009 either. I've never been interested in what's going on in a bedroom unless I'm in on it. ;)
0

#12546 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2019-April-12, 07:41

From David Leonhardt at NYT:

Quote

On a recent episode of “The Argument” podcast, I told my colleague Ross Douthat that I thought he was unfairly lumping together different parts of the media when criticizing the coverage of the Russia investigation.

Yes, cable television engaged in wild speculation before Robert Mueller issued his report. And, yes, some news outlets, including BuzzFeed News and McClatchy, published stories that today look dubious. But the newsrooms covering the investigation most closely, including The Times and The Washington Post, generally did an excellent job distinguishing among fact, uncertainty and falsehood.

I think the coverage of the end of the Mueller investigation was different, however. Across the media spectrum, much of the coverage was problematic.

To review: Mueller has written a report that very few people have seen. Its only official public description has come from William Barr, the attorney general whom President Trump appointed primarily because of Barr’s hostility to the investigation. And the difference between Barr’s letter and Mueller’s report has created widespread confusion.

“The press, to put it mildly, has not handled the confusion well,” Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes write in Lawfare. The media “dramatically overstated what Barr had actually said about the report,” Jurecic and Wittes write, and also incorrectly suggested Trump had been cleared of wrongdoing. The coverage also underplayed Barr’s bias.

In their article, Jurecic and Wittes offer several pieces of advice for anybody who will be covering — or trying to understand — the fuller version of the Mueller report, once it’s made public. Barr has said he will release a redacted version by early next week. Among the article’s advice:

Quote

Focus on what the report actually says, rather than trying to offer overly sweeping descriptions of what it means.

Pay more attention to the details of the report than to the reactions from Congress, the White House and elsewhere.

Be careful not to confuse a judgment about whether certain conduct is prosecutable with a judgment about whether it happened.

Remember that some behavior that is not prosecutable can still be wrong or damaging to national security.

Don’t assume that all redactions are inappropriate attempts by Barr to protect Trump.

Be open to the possibility of multiple, complicated story lines
.
All of this strikes me as good advice.

Related: James Fallows of The Atlantic says that The Seattle Times did a better job putting the Barr letter in context than much of the national media did.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#12547 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2019-April-12, 08:38

For some strange reason, I keep seeing Francis Urquhart from House of Cards saying "Mainstream media might very well think it's important to emphasize Mayor Pete's sexuality. I couldn't possibly comment. But if I could it would be to say that while I personally could care less, I find this emphasis interesting and disgusting."
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#12548 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,591
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-April-12, 14:25

 Chas_P, on 2019-April-11, 18:48, said:

I didn't care in 2009 either. I've never been interested in what's going on in a bedroom unless I'm in on it. ;)

Many people consider this more than just a private matter. They think it's part of a person's character, like their religious beliefs. "Coming out" is still a big deal for gay people, because people judge them by it.

And a person's character informs their policy decisions. Many of Trump's decisions are clearly related to his narcissism and racist, sexist, and homophobic attitudes.

Sexual orientation also changes a person's life experiences, which will influence his policies. Gender and race also have similar influences. Someone who has faced discrimination in their life is likely to have more empathy for disadvantaged classes (not just their own).

#12549 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,223
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2019-April-12, 18:46

If I were to have any interest in a candidates sex life, I would like it to be sane enough so that it does not seriously interfere with his/her job. Buttigieg is gay, that's fine, he is married, that's more than fine especially since apparently it is a successful marriage. Cruising gay bars would not be fine, just as it would not be fine for a hetero president to be trying to pick up someone in a local bar.

This came to mind when Bill Clinton was having his problems. People would get a kick out his enthusiasm for Big Macs, but enthusiasms for other women caused problems. Some of that should be between Bill and Hillary, at least I am content to leave it that way, but not all of it. And Donald is an embarrassment to his gender. Largely I hope to be able to mind my own business in these things.

Ken
0

#12550 User is offline   Chas_P 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,513
  • Joined: 2008-September-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gainesville, GA USA

Posted 2019-April-12, 20:02

 kenberg, on 2019-April-12, 18:46, said:

If I were to have any interest in a candidates sex life, I would like it to be sane enough so that it does not seriously interfere with his/her job.


My point exactly. So why does the media feel it necessary to report sexual preferences? Policy is what's important, not the fact that a candidate is "openly gay".


Quote

Donald is an embarrassment to his gender.


I guess the same could be said about Bill Clinton but then "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is." And FWIW I think Clinton was a successful President despite being a rogue; he and Hillary enriched themselves but they all do that, so what else is new? Hopefully someday we can all say that Trump was a success. (And he was already rich when he got there.)
0

#12551 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,519
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-April-12, 23:27

Ok, let me try to be more sincere about it.
Up until about 10 years ago, it would have been unthinkable that an openly gay person had a chance at becoming president. 2012 was the first time any state in the US had an openly gay senator.

It is an affront to human dignity to ask people to deny who they are so if they want to pursue public office. (And no, being gay doesn't just change what you do in your bedroom, I thought we had disposed of that level of ignorance 15 years ago.) It is a good thing this has changed. That Buttigieg is the first major presidential candidate who is openly gay is a major milestone, and a positive one. This is worth mentioning.

But my major point is this. I've read some about Buttigieg, and I've listened to a podcast interview with him. I did know that he is gay. But chas_p's comment above is the FIRST time I read a comment about Buttigieg where his sexual identity is the main topic.

Hence I am quite serious in my impression that his identity isn't an obsession of the media, it is an obsession of chas_p.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
2

#12552 User is offline   rmnka447 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,366
  • Joined: 2012-March-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Bridge, Golf, Soccer

Posted 2019-April-13, 15:26

 y66, on 2019-April-12, 07:41, said:

From David Leonhardt at NYT:


Laughable.

How many anonymous based stories did the NYT and WP publish that aided and abetted the Russian collusion narrative? How many times did the MSM media report that President Trump was considering firing Mueller from some second hand source? Those reports always seemed to appear whenever interest in the whole collusion was waning. The worst was the one that contended Trump had discussed firing Mueller 6 months earlier. Yep, 6 months earlier there were reports that someone said he had discussed it. So that story wasn't news, just repeating gossip.

This guy sounds like CNN and MSNBC who were touting how well they had covered the collusion hoax. Pure BS.
0

#12553 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,284
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2019-April-13, 17:35

 rmnka447, on 2019-April-13, 15:26, said:

Laughable.

How many times did the MSM media report that President Trump was considering firing Mueller from some second hand source? Those reports always seemed to appear whenever interest in the whole collusion was waning. The worst was the one that contended Trump had discussed firing Mueller 6 months earlier



I don't remember either report being disproved.

At the same time, I bet you are fine with Sean Hannity's "reporting" about murdered Seth Rich being the leak source for the DNC emails?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#12554 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,030
  • Joined: 2008-September-10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-April-13, 18:55

 Chas_NoDignity_NoHonor timestamp=, on 2019-April-12, 20:02, said:

...

0

#12555 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,284
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2019-April-13, 20:29

From the pen of conservative writer Jennifer Rubin:

Quote

A normal president confronted with a news story suggesting he ordered underlings to illegally transport asylum seekers to so-called sanctuary cities in order to retaliate against political enemies would deny knowledge of such a heinous plot. If need be, he’d make light of it, portray it as if it were idle chatter or a joke. That’s what President Trump’s devoted prevaricators (White Houses staffers) did following The Post account.

Trump, however, is anything but normal. No, he tweeted — of course it was a tweet — that not only was the idea considered but that it is still under consideration. Aides on background hastened to say that nothing was in the works, once more contradicting their boss.

Making matters worse, we learned he allegedly told Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan to close the border despite concerns about the legality of doing so. He allegedly told McAleenan, who is now also acting secretary of homeland security, that he — Trump — would pardon him later if need be.

What?!? That’s the only sensible reaction for someone minimally conversant in the Constitution and the rule of law. This is the conduct of a movie mob boss, not a president. Trump is so brazen he’d rather lie to make himself appear more politically vengeful than tell the truth that his suggestion apparently was rebuffed. Tough guy. Gotta make da Dems quake in their boots, right?

Republicans, as they always do when Trump is shredding democracy, remained silent on Friday. Speaking more generally of Trump’s Twitter habits in an interview, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared the president to be a “freak.” Actually, if the allegations are true, he’s much worse than that.

Former federal prosecutor Mimi Rocah acknowledged that, if the allegation about a pardon was true and Trump was serious, Trump then “offered a pardon as a bribe to get a public official to commit an unlawful act.” Referring to Attorney General William P. Barr’s exaggerated conception of executive authority, she queried, “Would Barr dare say that’s within his executive power?”

Constitutional scholar Laurence H. Tribe tells me, “If carried out, this offer to pardon high immigration officials if they will break the law on his behalf is the most obviously impeachable action President Trump has taken to date: It would mean this president has seized the power to put not just himself but all who do his bidding beyond the reach of law." He continues, "That doing so is a high crime and misdemeanor is beyond dispute. Any president guilty of such conduct cannot be permitted to remain in office.”

Now, even if the offer of a pardon were not technically a bribe, “this is still an extraordinary and disturbing abuse of presidential power,” says Joshua Matz, co-author with Tribe of “To End A Presidency: The Power of Impeachment.” “Especially if it were repeated in other contexts, such illegality-inducing conduct may well rise to the level of an impeachable offense, though in my view we don’t yet know nearly enough about what happened here to reach firm conclusions.”

In this, as in other instances, subordinates’ refusal to carry out orders (as former White House counsel Donald McGahn did in refusing to fire special counsel Robert S. Mueller III) provides some protection to Trump from the consequences of his own actions.

However, neither Trump nor the country can count on employees’ continued insubordination, especially in light of Trump’s preference for installing “acting” officials, who remain under his thumb. Swift and forceful action to halt his reckless disregard of the law is required.

Tribe argues, “Without doubt, therefore, the House Judiciary Committee needs to include this matter within its investigatory ambit, subpoenaing all those who may have relevant knowledge unless they appear voluntarily.” Normally, if there is a credible allegation of wrongdoing by the president, the attorney general would appoint a special counsel. Don’t hold your breath. Tribe observes, “it seems unrealistic to expect the blatantly compromised Attorney General William Barr to appoint a special counsel to pursue the issue even if, as appears to be the case, the president has credibly been charged with promising a pardon as a bribe for illegal conduct.”

We’ve now come to the point where Trump is bragging about a plot to abuse power, using federal resources to enact political revenge. We have reason to believe he tried to induce wrongdoing with a pardon offer. “One thing everyone who knows the relevant law has agreed about the otherwise sweeping pardon power is that it cannot be used in advance, to license crimes before they have been committed,” Tribe says.

Trump’s lawlessness is intensifying. Even those such as Tribe who have opposed impeachment, given “the Senate’s fidelity to Trump rather than to the Constitution,” wonder if Trump can be left in office for another year-and-a-half. “I hesitate to say the red line has finally been crossed, but I see no way around that conclusion at this point,” he says.

For now, it’s up to the House to send out subpoenas, have all relevant witnesses testify under oath about what is going on at the Department of Homeland Security and reach a factual conclusion as to what occurred. Meanwhile, Congress must speak with one voice: Under no circumstances can the federal government be used as an instrument to exact political revenge.

You’d think the necessity for such a statement would convince Republicans not to support his reelection for four more years, when he would feel entirely unrestrained. You’d be wrong.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#12556 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,223
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2019-April-14, 07:24

Quote

Making matters worse, we learned he allegedly told Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan to close the border despite concerns about the legality of doing so. He allegedly told McAleenan, who is now also acting secretary of homeland security, that he — Trump — would pardon him later if need be.

I have not been a supporter of impeachment but if this "alleged" becomes "credibly claimed" then I think I am a convert. The implications of this are presumably obvious to everyone, examples are presumably not needed, but during the Watergate years it was reported that G. Gordon Liddy had at one point misunderstood instructions, or hopefully misunderstood, and thought he was supposed to kill the columnist Jack Anderson. As i recall he assured everyone that he was a "stand-up guy" and was prepared to go down for it without talking if he was caught. He did not expect a presidential pardon if caught.
There is another side to this. The seriousness of the charge means that we need to know who is doing the alleging and whether it is at all credible. It should be obvious to everyone that we cannot have a president doing this, and we also cannot have someone saying that a president is doing this if he is not doing it. I have no trust in Trump at all but this is one more alleged step down a very bad path.
Ken
3

#12557 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,591
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-April-14, 16:08

 cherdano, on 2019-April-12, 23:27, said:

But my major point is this. I've read some about Buttigieg, and I've listened to a podcast interview with him. I did know that he is gay. But chas_p's comment above is the FIRST time I read a comment about Buttigieg where his sexual identity is the main topic.

I also haven't heard the media making a big deal of it. It gets mentioned, but it's not their focus. However, I don't partake much of conservative media -- I wouldn't be surprised if they obsess over it.

However, it's also hard to avoid discussions of it. He and Mike Pence both say that Christianity is a big part of their life, and they've been going at each other about piety (e.g. how can Pence support a man like Trump?). And many Christians consider homosexuality to be a mortal sin.

Some things are just hard to avoid, especially when you're breaking new ground. Obama tried to make his campaigns about more than just race, but this could only go so far when he was the first credible candidate of color. And Hillary didn't want her campaign to be just about whether we could elect a woman President.

This is hardly new. Many people worried about JFK being Catholic -- they thought that he would take direction from the Pope.

#12558 User is offline   rmnka447 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,366
  • Joined: 2012-March-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Bridge, Golf, Soccer

Posted 2019-April-15, 04:50

 Winstonm, on 2019-April-13, 17:35, said:

I don't remember either report being disproved.

At the same time, I bet you are fine with Sean Hannity's "reporting" about murdered Seth Rich being the leak source for the DNC emails?


But they weren't proved either because nobody is on the record.
0

#12559 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,284
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2019-April-15, 08:35

 rmnka447, on 2019-April-15, 04:50, said:

But they weren't proved either because nobody is on the record.


"Deep Throat" was never on the record, either, but he helped bring down Nixon. The "no named source" meme is to trick listeners into believing that the information presented is totally worthless instead of likely accurate. It plays on biases to discredit news that is troubling.

If you will look in the mirror, you will see it at work. ;)
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#12560 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,030
  • Joined: 2008-September-10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-April-15, 13:35

 rmnka447, on 2019-April-15, 04:50, said:

But they weren't proved either because nobody is on the record.


Depending on the publication and the vetting that goes into verifying unnamed sources, you might have 98-99% accuracy in off the record quotes. On the other hand, you can look directly at Dennison's tweets, press briefings, and political rallies and you would be maybe 10-20% accurate if you depended on video and audio recordings of what he says.

When it comes to White House personnel, you probably have to be off the record on most things if you want to keep your job, and anybody still working there wants to keep their jobs.
0

  • 1107 Pages +
  • « First
  • 626
  • 627
  • 628
  • 629
  • 630
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

353 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 353 guests, 0 anonymous users