[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2019-March-25, 20:51, said:

Thanks. I am not expecting a phone call !It's a tricky business. The investigation is/was serious, and it turned up some serious charges. But there is still an election next year. The election will be where much is decided.

You do realize that I was being sarcastic, right? Essentially all of the Democratic presidential candidates have avoided talking about Mueller and Russia, and focussed on issues rather than on Trump. See the links embedded in my post.

[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2019-March-25, 22:46, said:

You do realize that I was being sarcastic, right? Essentially all of the Democratic presidential candidates have avoided talking about Mueller and Russia, and focussed on issues rather than on Trump. See the links embedded in my post.

No, I did not realize that you were being sarcastic.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2019-March-26, 05:55, said:

No, I did not realize that you were being sarcastic.

Hands down, this is one of the most meta exchanges that I have ever seen on Bridgewinners,

Ken, I can't help but not that this looks like another in a never ending series of exchanges in which you complain about the Democrats not spoon feeding you with policy information whilst demonstrating that you expend zero effort to actually look at anything that is presented to you...

[y66]

Guest post from Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:

Quote

It took all of one day after Donald Trump was cleared of criminal liability in the special counsel’s probe for the president to demonstrate exactly why his impeachment has been an on-the-table topic almost from day one.

It’s one thing for Trump to congratulate himself on “Complete and Total EXONERATION” even though Attorney General William Barr’s summary of the investigation said no such thing. If the president wants to do a victory lap because he’s not going to be prosecuted – at least for this set of charges – well, that’s a pretty low bar, but he’s welcome to it.

On Monday, though, a more alarming strategy emerged. Evidently, the White House now wants to use the story to launch an attack on all of the president’s perceived enemies – calling for critics to be banned from television programs, demanding that various House Democrats lose their committee posts, and even suggesting that those who called for investigations were, in the president’s words, “evil” and “treasonous.”

Every president, I’d be willing to bet, thinks things like that. Many presidents, I’m confident, say such things to their friends and associates. That’s natural and understandable in the heat of Washington conflict. But to say these things out loud, as Trump does on a regular basis? That’s simply not acceptable for the president of a democratic nation. Nor is it acceptable to insist that the Justice Department investigate his political opponents, as Trump does regularly and as his lawyer Rudy Giuliani did again on Monday.

It’s all a form of undermining the rule of law. It’s an abuse of power.

As it happens, it’s also bad presidenting. By all reports, the president and his allies know nothing more about special counsel Robert Mueller’s report than the rest of us do. And yet we know that Trump is already badly overselling his supposed vindication on obstruction of justice and may well be overstating his exoneration on conspiring with Russia. As several people have pointed out (see links below), there’s a large gap between not being criminally liable and having done nothing wrong. And while it’s possible that the full Mueller report will clear Trump and his associates of all wrongdoing, there are quite a few facts on the record suggesting that a clean bill of health – a Complete and Total EXONERATION – is unlikely.

In any event, Trump got exactly the headlines he must’ve wanted on Monday. His administration might have used a day of good press to shift some attention to their favored policy proposals or other positive news they wanted to highlight. The president also might have made a point of condemning Russia’s attack on the 2016 election and acknowledging that a thorough investigation was in fact needed.

Instead, Trump and his allies immediately reminded everyone how little respect this president has for democratic norms and set themselves up for political damage if the Mueller report doesn’t live up to their spin. Meanwhile, they’ve put themselves in an impossible position when the Democrats call for the full report to be released; all but the most extreme partisans will see the contradiction between claiming that the report totally vindicates the president and also claiming that no one should see it.

In other words, instead of taking a win and building on it, Trump took all of one day to oversell it, increase the likelihood that more damaging information will be publicly released, and remind everyone that he’s still unfit for the office he holds.

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2019-March-26, 06:40, said:

Hands down, this is one of the most meta exchanges that I have ever seen on Bridgewinners,

Ken, I can't help but note that this looks like another in a never ending series of exchanges in which you complain about the Democrats not spoon feeding you with policy information whilst demonstrating that you expend zero effort to actually look at anything that is presented to you...

This is hard to respond to. I don't want to just ignore it but I also don't feel like mounting a defense of myself. I acknowledge your comments. I'll leave it at that.

[Al_U_Card]

y66, on 2019-March-26, 06:59, said:

Guest post from Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:

Gee, open and candid comments, MUCH worse than subterfuge and obfuscation? Refreshing (if somewhat disquieting) change. Up front, up close and personal, no wonder the swampsters hate him so much. Court of Louis XVI anyone? The wonks are in disarray.

[Winstonm]

If there was any question about whether or not Attorney General is another sycophant, this should make that question moot:

Quote

In a significant shift, the Justice Department now says that it backs a full invalidation of the Affordable Care Act, the signature Obama-era health law.

And an attorney who interprets the law to mean that the president cannot obstruct justice is one who adheres to a philosophy of a quasi-imperial president. "I was just following orders" has a nasty ring to it - more so when the country's top law enforcement agency is expected to display blind loyalty to a single individual.

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2019-March-26, 06:59, said:

Guest post from Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:

What Bernstein describes is classic demagoguery - the more outrageous and undignified he acts, the more the deluded masses adore him. A demagogue who surrounds himself with sycophants, stacks the courts with sycophants, and has a compliant Congress is indeed dangerous to a degree that can threaten an entire nation.

I would expect the next step is a now unrestrained assault on the treasury via cutouts and conduits tied to legal businesses and other countries.

[Winstonm]

This from The Atlantic helped me understand a lot:

Quote

Frank Figliuzzi, a former assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, said he “never envisioned” that Mueller would bring a conspiracy charge—and that focusing on the absence of criminal indictments for conspiracy is unproductive. “If all we do is apply criminal standards to investigative findings, we are missing the point,” Figliuzzi told me. He noted that the vast majority of counterintelligence cases never result in criminal prosecution. Instead, he said, “they’re about determining the degree to which a foreign power has targeted, compromised, or recruited” the subject. “This thing started as a counterintelligence investigation,” Figliuzzi said, “and it needs to end as a counterintelligence investigation.”

The real question is what happened to that counterintelligence investigation?

[y66]

Guest post from Paul Krugman at NYT:

Quote

Like many people, I’d like to know what the Mueller report actually says. In case you haven’t noticed, we don’t; all we know is what a couple of Trump appointees claim the report says. But meanwhile, a lot of other things are happening. And on the issue that actually dominated Democratic campaigning in the 2018 midterms — health care — the big news is that the parties are farther apart than ever.

I’m not talking about the debate within the Democratic party about what its grand vision should be for the long-term future of health reform — Medicare for All, Medicare for America, whatever. Instead, I’m talking about the health reform we have: the Affordable Care Act, which Democrats enacted in 2010, Republicans tried but failed to repeal in 2017, but which has a fate that’s still very much up in the air.



As the figure shows, the A.C.A. led to a dramatic reduction in the number of Americans without health insurance; around 20 million people who wouldn’t have had coverage without the act now do. Obamacare comes in for a lot of criticism, but it’s hard to think of a piece of legislation since the enactment of Medicare, more than half a century ago, that has done so much to improve the lives of so many.

But gains in health coverage have stalled out under Trump, partly because of administration sabotage, but also because subsidies designed to make insurance affordable turn out to be unavailable or inadequate for many middle-class families.
So House Democrats are introducing legislation with a goal of resuming stalled progress on health care, both by blocking the Trump administration’s sabotage efforts and by closing some of the gaps in subsidy coverage. The thing to realize here is that while this legislation obviously won’t be enacted as long as Republicans control the Senate and White House, it could very well become law very quickly if Democrats win control next year. And given past experience, it would probably mean health insurance for millions more Americans.

Meanwhile, for its part, the Trump administration has just filed suit in federal court calling for the abolition of the entire Affordable Care Act. If that suit prevails, around 20 million people would lose coverage right away.

So as I said, there are other things going on beyond the question of how far Trump scandals reach and who, exactly, did what to and for whom. I don’t know whether the 2020 election, like the 2018 midterms, will be largely about health care — but if the election is about what will directly affect people’s lives for better or worse, it should be.

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2019-March-26, 07:37, said:

This is hard to respond to. I don't want to just ignore it but I also don't feel like mounting a defense of myself. I acknowledge your comments. I'll leave it at that.

Ken, this Democratic primary is unusually focussed on policies. From Kamala Harris over Amy Klobuchar to Elisabeth Warren, they have competed in hauling out policies that would try to address the typical concerns of actual human beings living in the US - from healthcare to affordable housing, from teacher pay to the problems with big tech companies or the financial industry ripping off customers. As far as they have talked about Trump, it was mostly to highlight his corruption, and how he has not actually been working to help his voters.
This has all been covered extensively in many media outlets - NYT, Washington Post, Vox.com. If you are genuinely interested in learning about them, it is a bit puzzling that you aren't making the choices that would lead to that.

In other words, your stated preference is to be informed about actual policy proposed by Democratic candidates, and for their concrete claims explaining how they'd be a better president than Trump. Your revealed preference is to be uninformed.

Here is a random starter to help you match these up better:
https://www.google.c...m+Kamala+Harris

[y66]

From Democrats Pivot Hard to Health Care After Trump Moves to Strike Down Affordable Care Act by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Robert Pear at NYT:

Quote

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s decision to ask a federal appeals court to invalidate the Affordable Care Act has given House Democrats a new opening to pursue what they see as a winning political strategy: moving past talk of impeachment to put kitchen-table issues like health care front and center.

The notice to the court, filed late Monday by the Justice Department, could not have come at a more opportune time for Democrats. The finding by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, that there was no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, dashed the hopes of the most partisan Democrats that the House would impeach the president.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi — who celebrated her 79th birthday on Tuesday — had already planned to move to change the conversation with the unveiling of the Democrats’ own health care plan on Tuesday. The Democrats’ bill aims to lower health insurance premiums, strengthen protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions and ban the sale of what Democrats call “junk insurance.”

The Justice Department’s move gave the unveiling an urgency that not even she could have anticipated.

“The Republicans did say during the campaign that they weren’t there to undermine the pre-existing condition benefit, and here they are, right now, saying they’re going to strip the whole Affordable Care Act as the law of the land,” Ms. Pelosi told reporters Tuesday, adding, “This is actually an opportunity for us to speak to the American people with clarity.”

More

Dems pivot hard to issues? Good idea, as has been suggested by at least one poster in the water cooler, without sarcasm even, and by another, if somewhat petulantly and obliquely, that this is indeed something Pelosi and many of her colleagues who are running for president have been trying to do and are happy to have this new opportunity to do.

[jjbrr]

hrothgar, on 2019-March-26, 06:40, said:

Hands down, this is one of the most meta exchanges that I have ever seen on Bridgewinners,

Ken, I can't help but not that this looks like another in a never ending series of exchanges in which you complain about the Democrats not spoon feeding you with policy information whilst demonstrating that you expend zero effort to actually look at anything that is presented to you...

hrothgar, you are the smartest dumbass i've ever encountered. I know it's working for you, but lol...

[y66]

jjbrr, on 2019-March-26, 20:45, said:

hrothgar, you are the smartest dumbass i've ever encountered. I know it's working for you, but lol...

Speaking of stuff working / not working, what does it mean that chas_p's prayers for hrothgar have not been answered? Is there a minimum sincerity requirement? That seems too conditional.

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2019-March-27, 09:20, said:

Speaking of stuff working / not working, what does it mean that chas_p's prayers for hrothgar have not been answered? Is there a minimum sincerity requirement? That seems too conditional.

I always get a kick out of the answered prayer meme that claims prayers are always answered with one of three responses: Yes, no, or not now, seeing as those are the only three outcomes possible, whether praying to a deity or a rock.

[Winstonm]

Amazing, even Fox News is not sold on Barr's explanations.

Quote

We saw on Sunday a four-page summary of a 700-page report,” Napolitano explained. “The 700-page report is a summary of two million pages of documents, of raw evidence.”

The analyst went on to insist that the report “undoubtedly” details “some evidence of a conspiracy and some evidence of obstruction” by President Donald Trump.

[Winstonm]

Mick Mulvaney and Individual-1 just gave 30 million voters a reason to vote them out.

Quote

Across the country, 29.8 million people would lose their health insurance if the Affordable Care Act were repealed—more than doubling the number of people without health insurance.

[

Quote

Donald Trump Individual-1 reportedly decided to go ahead with his push to repeal the Affordable Care Act in spite of criticisms from his vice president, attorney general and White House counsel.

The New York Times reported that Trump’s plan to repeal Obamacare is backed by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Joe Grogan, the man Mulvaney chose to lead the Domestic Policy Council.

[Winstonm]

Rather amazing that Fox News still allows Judge Napolitano airtime as he is not following the script.

Quote

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano defended embattled House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) Thursday, stating the Democratic lawmaker is likely correct to insist there will be evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in the still-unseen Mueller report.

[kenberg]

I wouldn't want to leave the impression that Barr's summary can be the end of the story. I said I thought it was a good start, that probably some small parts of the full report will need to be edited out for legal or security reasons, and that then, except in places where there is large agreement about the redaction, we need to see the whole thing. And it shouldn't take forever. It's a long report, so some care is needed, but it needs to be moving along. I'm ok with taking care as long as we are getting it done.
I do very much think it is time to drop the impeachment idea. I was not fond of it to start with. "High crimes and misdemeanors" does not have a clear definition, but whether we are speaking of Nixon or Clinton, or of Andrew Johnson who was actually before my time, I prefer to let voters choose unless the situation clearly requires doing otherwise. I am not expecting that to be the case.

I am by nature a cautious person. When I started at the University of Minnesota all entering Freshmen were require to take the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. I insisted later that they tell me what it said about me. They resisted, I can imagine they did not want several thousand of us coming i for discussion, but they gave a summary, including "You are not a gambler". That's true literally, and probably also metaphorically. I just think of it as saying that I am not stupid.

I mention caution because the Dems are currently celebrating the Trump attack on the ACA. I recommend holding off on the champagne. Yes this presents an opportunity. Opportunities can be squandered, and frequently are. And yes, I realize that I should read the position papers of each of the dozen or so candidates and offer a learned critique of each of them along with innovative suggestions for improvement. Maybe tomorrow, I've got a bridge game to go to today.

[Winstonm]

So much of the problem with messaging in politics is due to the complexities of the message compared to the vehicles of delivery.

When we look at history, the 1700s and 1800s were periods where the written word dominated - and I would argue that the electorate was much better informed about their local and state politicians and what they stood for. Long essays were the norm. Try to present a lengthy essay today about any complex subject and I doubt more than 5% of the population would read it or even part of it.

Our failures to maintain the advantages across the board to all members of society placed us in a position where a demagogue could win a following. That a demagogue was elected president and still retains a remarkable amount of support shows how far we have fallen as a country.

It is still remarkable to me that the same people who clamored for repeal of "Obamacare" were horrified by the idea of repealing the ACA, too ill-informed to know they were the same thing.

How do you turn those people back toward facts?