The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[Patticus]

5 hours ago, PSI Wind said:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/net-neutrality-goes-down-in-flames-as-fcc-votes-to-kill-title-ii-rules/

Now, it still has 4 months, but this is still absolutely revolting. The FCC Chair won't even consider the public and will only look at data. Data, of course, meaning the sweet amount of cash the ISPs are giving him.

There has to be a way for the next Democratic administration to restore net neutrality and install protections for it that can readily survive future Trumps... right?

[Tani Coyote]

19 minutes ago, Patticus said:

There has to be a way for the next Democratic administration to restore net neutrality and install protections for it that can readily survive future Trumps... right?

Yes, actually. The FCC has 5 commissioners, who serve five year terms, and only 3 may be of the same Party. In absence of replacements, they continue to serve until the end of the next Congress. Currently, it's 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat. It's possible this decision might not have happened had Trump not been slow with appointments, as a full five-member board could have surprised us; the long terms of commissioners, longer than Presidents, are no doubt meant to encourage being above politics.

Beyond that, there's always an Act of Congress to overrule the decision, even if changing the Commissioner makeup would easier. Of course, there's always the issue of an Act being repealed by the next Congress.

Nothing is set in stone that is not protected by the Constitution.

As it currently stands, one Republican commissioner's term is up in mid-2019. If the Democrats retake the Senate next year, they'll be in a position to replace him with a Democrat and give the Democrats a majority (Trump is required to appoint at least one Democrat in the meantime) on the FCC board.

[CleverSonicUsername]

5 hours ago, Lord Liquir (Ogilvie) said:

On the other hand, Chaffetz is the guy who became infamous for saying poor people need to buy healthcare over iPhones, so good riddance on that count.

 

He also said the president is exempt from conflict of interest laws and that he wouldn't investigate that, which prompted his constituents to shout "do your job" at him.

[Candescence]

15 hours ago, PSI Wind said:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/net-neutrality-goes-down-in-flames-as-fcc-votes-to-kill-title-ii-rules/

Now, it still has 4 months, but this is still absolutely revolting. The FCC Chair won't even consider the public and will only look at data. Data, of course, meaning the sweet amount of cash the ISPs are giving him.

Fortunately, as Techdirt points out, the FCC can't reverse the shift to Title II so easily.

The main problem Ajit Pai (resident former Verizon lawyer and resident telecom shill) has is that he's going to immediately have to deal with lawsuits challenging any major change, and the overwhelming response in favor of proper net neutrality and the lack of reason that things should be changed is going to make convincing the courts that changing back to Title I is necessary, well, rather difficult. Meaning Pai is gonna have to rely on congress to pass a law to remove net neutrality, but, well, the government is in such a massive shambles right now that it's gonna take a while if ever.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

9 minutes ago, Candescence said:

Fortunately, as Techdirt points out, the FCC can't reverse the shift to Title II so easily.

The main problem Ajit Pai (resident former Verizon lawyer and resident telecom shill) has is that he's going to immediately have to deal with lawsuits challenging any major change, and the overwhelming response in favor of proper net neutrality and the lack of reason that things should be changed is going to make convincing the courts that changing back to Title I is necessary, well, rather difficult. Meaning Pai is gonna have to rely on congress to pass a law to remove net neutrality, but, well, the government is in such a massive shambles right now that it's gonna take a while if ever.

Oh I don't think that will be a problem once the Rethuglican Congress realizes censorship of the net is a good thing for their Russian-American Dictatorship scheme.

[Tani Coyote]

A Democratic Congressman has introduced a bill to require Trump to pay for travel expenses to commercial properties he owns.

It costs about $4.7 million every time he goes to Mar-a-Lago, and Trump Tower's protection will end up costing around $85 million assuming Melania and Barron relocate to Washington in the next few weeks. Trump is going to reduce Mar-a-Lago trips but will just be going to one of his golf courses instead.

Someone as wealthy as Trump should absolutely be forced to foot the bill of travel to private retreats, especially when it's this damn often. While Melania and Barron deserve protection, I don't think Barron's school life not being disrupted by a move (like kids don't move all the time) is justification for taxpayers footing such a massive bill. In situations like this, the first family needs to be told they will relocate to the White House or they have to absorb the costs (if able). If this bill did move forward I'd hope it'd be amended so poorer Presidents received an exemption on paying bills, though Congress should limit how much it reimburses.

Let's see the "small government" Republicans not even comment on this, as they rail against pre-existing conditions, Medicaid and food stamps.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

3 minutes ago, Lord Liquir (Ogilvie) said:

Let's see the "small government" Republicans not even comment on this, as they rail against pre-existing conditions, Medicaid and food stamps.

This statement makes me think about something I've wondered for a while now:

Do Republicans just see people who aren't rich as being thieves or something? Like they believe that being rich means that the person must clearly be a good person, while being middle class or poor means that those people are just scum who steal from the "innocent" rich and therefore anything they take from the poor and middle class is a just and righteous thing or something?

[Tani Coyote]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/333388-ann-coulter-trashes-trump-this-is-the-great-negotiator

Ann Coulter is getting dangerously close to pulling support for Trump, angry he was unable to build a wall or score many victories in the budget.

On the other hand, she's saying it's all Congress' fault that he can't be successful as a President.

Welcome to checks and balances, Ann. Presidents have to build a coalition just like a Prime Minister, even if they have more independence.

Just now, SenEDDtor Missile said:

Do Republicans just see people who aren't rich as being thieves or something? Like they believe that being rich means that the person must clearly be a good person, while being middle class or poor means that those people are just scum who steal from the "innocent" rich and therefore anything they take from the poor and middle class is a just and righteous thing or something?

Pretty much. They believe in the bootstrap myth and that with hard work any person is able to succeed.

It's not necessarily malicious, either. Most of them being white and many of those being men, the idea individualism is the root of all success and failure is a must for the ego. Having not faced the hardships of other minority groups, even if they grew up poor, they can easily buy the idea that hard work alone is what changes one's lot in life.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

6 minutes ago, Lord Liquir (Ogilvie) said:

It's not necessarily malicious, either. Most of them being white and many of those being men, the idea individualism is the root of all success and failure is a must for the ego. Having not faced the hardships of other minority groups, even if they grew up poor, they can easily buy the idea that hard work alone is what changes one's lot in life.

Rather hypocritical too considering that many of them probably didn't exactly do it alone either; nepotism, Dad's money, getting a job just because they're white...

Really the idea of doing it alone is dumb considering that unless you're some kind of mountain man living alone in the wild surviving off the good Earth, EVERYONE has had to rely on someone at some point in their lives.

[Tani Coyote]

Just now, SenEDDtor Missile said:

Rather hypocritical too considering that many of them probably didn't do it alone either; nepotism, Dad's money, getting a job just because they're white...

People are very good at taking their parents' connections or just having two parents for granted, yes.

This comic simply explains how privilege manifests in everyday life, and how easy it is to ignore the fact one received plenty of handouts as a child.

[Volphied]

Quote

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”

 

[Patticus]

Now they can't ding Obama for the comments he made to Putin prior to the 2012 election, about it being easier to do things regarding nuclear weapons after the election. Except that, unlike Obama, Trump sounds a lot shadier than Obama ever did.

 

Anyway, Rosenstein told the Senate yesterday that the FBI inquiry is now no longer just a counter-intelligence investigation, but a criminal one:

Quote

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein dropped two bombshells during a hotly anticipated appearance before the Senate on Thursday, less than 24 hours after he announced the appointment of a special counsel in the FBI’s investigation into Russian meddling in the presidential election.

According to lawmakers, Rosenstein confirmed that the bureau’s investigation is no longer strictly a counterintelligence investigation — a kind of probe that does not normally result in charges — but also a criminal one.

He also said he was aware President Trump intended to fire Comey prior to penning a memo that the White House later used as its justification for the dismissal. 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/334162-senators-told-of-broadening-russia-investigation

So they've dug up some criminal activity, serious enough to alter the nature of the investigation as a whole. I wonder who's going down?

Related: 

And back to the Russia probe...

Quote

Russia probe reaches current White House official

The law enforcement investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign has identified a current White House official as a significant person of interest, showing that the probe is reaching into the highest levels of government, according to people familiar with the matter.

The senior White House adviser under scrutiny by investigators is someone close to the president, according to these people, who would not further identify the official.

The revelation comes as the investigation also appears to be entering a more overtly active phase, with investigators shifting from work that has remained largely hidden from the public to conducting interviews and using a grand jury to issue subpoenas. The intensity of the probe is expected to accelerate in the coming weeks, the people said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russia-probe-reaches-current-white-house-official-people-familiar-with-the-case-say/2017/05/19/7685adba-3c99-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.bc54e381620a

 

Criminal activity, a cover-up, and a senior White House official close to Trump in the crosshairs of investigators. It must be summer, because it's getting hot in there!

The next few weeks/months are going to see the Russia story almost continually in the headlines, and with Comey likely to take his memos public, it's not going to go very well for Trump. Unless Mueller smothers the entire thing with his investigation. Can he do that? We have the Congressional investigation, the Senate investigation, the FBI/CIA investigation and now Mueller. Shit's getting complicated.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

11 minutes ago, Patticus said:

Criminal activity, a cover-up, and a senior White House official close to Trump in the crosshairs of investigators. It must be summer, because it's getting hot in there!

The next few weeks/months are going to see the Russia story almost continually in the headlines, and with Comey likely to take his memos public, it's not going to go very well for Trump. Unless Mueller smothers the entire thing with his investigation. Can he do that? We have the Congressional investigation, the Senate investigation, the FBI/CIA investigation and now Mueller. Shit's getting complicated.

I don't think I've ever seen one administration get subjected to so much scrutiny, let alone from almost every major department like this. Trump and the Trumpettes dun fucked up big time.

[Johnny Boy]

And now Coney has agreed to testify in public. And this comes right after Trump bragging about firing him to the Russians. Jesus, things just continue to escalate.

[Nepenthe]

Been mainly doing a lot of reading today on some of the background of these people and events versus scoping out current headlines.

Here's an amazing long-form article about Bob Mueller, the guy who was appointed to the special counsel, and Jim Comey, which gave me renewed respect for the dude. Two back-to-back excerpts I loved:

Quote

Yet even amid the stress of that time, Comey didn’t hesitate to force the issue of STELLAR WIND, standing up to the vice president. During one White House meeting, Comey said he couldn’t find a legal basis for the program.

“Others see it differently,” a scowling Cheney replied.

“The analysis is flawed—in fact, fatally flawed. No lawyer reading that could reasonably rely on it,” Comey said, his hand sweeping across the table dismissively.

Cheney’s counsel, the famously aggressive David Addington, standing in the back of the room, spoke up: “Well, I’m a lawyer,” he snapped, “and I did.”

Comey shot back, “No good lawyer.”

The room went silent.

 

Quote

What concerned Comey and the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel was that the NSA program appeared to go far beyond what was allowed for domestic surveillance—and without radical changes, they thought it was both unconstitutional and illegal. Ultimately, though, it wasn’t Comey’s arguments, legal or political, that stopped the Bush White House in its tracks on STELLAR WIND.

It was Bob Mueller.

Bob Mueller/Jim Comey/Final Destination/No items/Sleep Clause-- Trump about to get fucked. (not an article, just a related accompaniment)

Another article that had me cracking up: Comey was basically creeped the fuck out by Trump and his insistence on "pledging loyalty" to him. So much so that he tried hiding in the curtains with his blue suit hoping not to be called out at a meeting. Apparently people were upset that he seemed so chummy with Trump, but with this article this video has a new context. Look at the poor guy shake his head as he walks across the floor with everyone looking at him:

 

[Patticus]

Rumor has it that Jared Kushner himself is the person of interest sought by the FBI investigation. Trump will not be happy.

[CleverSonicUsername]

1 hour ago, Patticus said:

Rumor has it that Jared Kushner himself is the person of interest sought by the FBI investigation. Trump will not be happy.

Please please please let this be true.

[Nepenthe]

"Russian officials bragged in conversations during the presidential campaign that they had cultivated a strong relationship with former Trump adviser retired Gen. Michael Flynn and believed they could use him to influence Donald Trump and his team, sources told CNN."

C'mon son.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

And again, this kinda shit NEVER happened with Obama--not a single controversy he had was of this magnitude, not even the disclosure NSA Prism Program under his watch.

All that spite looks like it's turning into a serious case of karma.

[Tani Coyote]

All boils down to how much the GOP politicians feel the GOP brand is threatened by this continuing. If they fear widespread alienation from the GOP that could lead to Democratic sweeps, the last thing they want is to let this continue without some sort of stance against Trump. If they feel most GOP voters can be trusted to reliably fall back in line and most non-GOP voters will not make a point to turn out, then nothing comes of it. On the other hand, they could be asking for a serious blow in 2020 when the Democratic opponent's coattails see the GOP lose many seats due to an unpopular Trump.

The GOP has benefitted enormously from voter loyalty and apathy, having controlled the House for 16 of the past 20 years and the Senate 10 of the past 20 years. Combined with gerrymandering, a small state advantage and voter suppression, they have plenty of reason to sit tight with little fear.

On the other hand, an already widely-disliked Presidency going down in flames this fast is virtually unprecedented. Bush II caused a Democratic sweep, and that was only after about 5 years where he had fairly broad public support that swiftly imploded as the fallout from Iraq and other policies became known. It's worth noting the Republicans did good in 2000 as well as 2010 (not quite as good as 2010 due to Gore's coattails,  but they still saw an expanded control of state legislatures), so while the post-2010 gerrymandering was more sophisticated, it's hardly a guarantee on monopolized power.

Trump and his staff were hoping his first foreign tour would bolster support for him, but that doesn't seem likely.

I personally dread his speech about Islam in Saudi Arabia. I almost want to place a bet he'll ask moderate Muslims to join his "crusade" against radicals.

[Patticus]

Things Trump Criticized Obama For That He Is Doing - May 2017 Edition

 

 

[PSI Wind]

9 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

And again, this kinda shit NEVER happened with Obama--not a single controversy he had was of this magnitude, not even the disclosure NSA Prism Program under his watch.

All that spite looks like it's turning into a serious case of karma.

No, he had one controvery

HE WAS *gasp* BLACK 

[Candescence]

So apparently Joe Lieberman is the front-runner for Trump's pick for the new head of the FBI.

The same Joe Lieberman who dragged down Al Gore's presidental bid as his VP pick, the same Joe who raised a massive stink over video game violence back in the day, and the same Joe who singlehandedly killed the public option in Obamacare. Fuck that guy, I hope the Democrats try to delay his appointment as much as they can if he's picked.

And that's not even getting into the fact that he's not remotely qualified in any case or that Trump is one of his law firm's clients.

[KHCast]

Someone not being qualified for the position and having shady ties to Trump getting the position? Total shocker at point

[CleverSonicUsername]

13 hours ago, Patticus said:

Things Trump Criticized Obama For That He Is Doing - May 2017 Edition

 

 

It's weird to think how Past Trump would fuckin hate President Trump. He'd be right there with us.