[kenberg]

Chas_P, on 2020-December-22, 18:55, said:

Merry Christmas guys. Or Hanukkah. Or Ramadan. Or Kwanzaa. Or whatever pushes your hot button. May your holidays be filled with love of family and your fellow man. We survived four years of Jimmy Carter, eight years of Barack Obama, four years of Donald Trump; we are all Americans and I'm confident we can survive four years of Joe Biden. Best wishes.

This seems to be acknowledgement that Biden won. You are out ahead of Donald Trump on this, he occasionally acknowledges Biden won but then says he really won in a landslide, it's just that Biden managed a fraudulent win. DT's acknowledgement of a Biden win is somewhat like your happy holiday wishes, not quite what you would call whole-hearted.

Carter and Obama made mistakes, of course they did, as did both Bushes and Reagan, and Clinton. As will Biden. We all do, Donald Trump is like no other president in my lifetime. His exiting style is totally consistent with his entire life, which is to say it is awful. Far worse than awful. I expect us all to make mistakes. In my worst nightmares I would not have expected Donald Trump as president.

[nige1]

Chas_P, on 2020-December-22, 18:55, said:

Merry Christmas guys. Or Hanukkah. Or Ramadan. Or Kwanzaa. Or whatever pushes your hot button. May your holidays be filled with love of family and your fellow man. We survived four years of Jimmy Carter, eight years of Barack Obama, four years of Donald Trump; we are all Americans and I'm confident we can survive four years of Joe Biden. Best wishes.

Merrry Christmas, everybody, and a more cheerful New Year

[y66]

Andrew Sorkin at NYT said:

Not even a day after lawmakers agreed on a $900 billion stimulus package, President Trump called it a “disgrace” and suggested that he might reject the heavily negotiated bill at the eleventh hour.

“It has almost nothing to do with Covid,” he said in a video posted online that attacked the initiative on multiple fronts. He criticized the combining of the stimulus with a broader spending bill that would fund various government functions, and demanded that direct payments to Americans be more than doubled, to $2,000 from $600. That’s despite the deal having been negotiated by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Senate Republicans having resisted sizable direct checks.

Mr. Trump suggested that unless the funding provisions were carved out and the direct payouts increased, he would reject the package (though he didn’t use the word veto).

Reactions to the threat were split:

• Trump administration officials were stunned, while lawmakers worried about the federal government shutting down on Dec. 29 if the president doesn’t sign the bill. Both parties are also concerned about the politics of holding up federal aid as they prepare for runoff elections in Georgia that could determine control of the Senate.
  
• Democratic leaders egged Mr. Trump on, hoping to enlist him as an unlikely ally in providing more direct aid to Americans. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi retweeted Mr. Trump’s message, adding, “The President has agreed to $2,000 — Democrats are ready to bring this to the Floor this week by unanimous consent. Let’s do it!”

Congress could still push through the existing deal. The House and Senate each approved the bill with overwhelming majorities, meaning that they could override a veto. Lawmakers are already preparing to push through a military spending bill that Mr. Trump has threatened to reject because it doesn’t eliminate a legal liability shield for internet platforms.

• This would require cooperation between Democrats and Republicans, and it’s unclear how hard Democrats will push for the increased direct payouts.
  
• Market futures were up this morning, suggesting that investors were shrugging off Mr. Trump’s threat.

[kenberg]

Andrew Sorkin at NYT said:

Quote

Not even a day after lawmakers agreed on a $900 billion stimulus package, President Trump called it a "disgrace" and suggested that he might reject the heavily negotiated bill at the eleventh hour.

"It has almost nothing to do with Covid," he said in a video posted online that attacked the initiative on multiple fronts. He criticized the combining of the stimulus with a broader spending bill that would fund various government functions, and demanded that direct payments to Americans be more than doubled, to $2,000 from $600. That's despite the deal having been negotiated by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Senate Republicans having resisted sizable direct checks.

Mr. Trump suggested that unless the funding provisions were carved out and the direct payouts increased, he would reject the package (though he didn't use the word veto).

Reactions to the threat were split:

• Trump administration officials were stunned, while lawmakers worried about the federal government shutting down on Dec. 29 if the president doesn't sign the bill. Both parties are also concerned about the politics of holding up federal aid as they prepare for runoff elections in Georgia that could determine control of the Senate.
• Democratic leaders egged Mr. Trump on, hoping to enlist him as an unlikely ally in providing more direct aid to Americans. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi retweeted Mr. Trump's message, adding, "The President has agreed to $2,000 — Democrats are ready to bring this to the Floor this week by unanimous consent. Let's do it!"

Congress could still push through the existing deal. The House and Senate each approved the bill with overwhelming majorities, meaning that they could override a veto. Lawmakers are already preparing to push through a military spending bill that Mr. Trump has threatened to reject because it doesn't eliminate a legal liability shield for internet platforms.

• This would require cooperation between Democrats and Republicans, and it's unclear how hard Democrats will push for the increased direct payouts.
• Market futures were up this morning, suggesting that investors were shrugging off Mr. Trump's threat

Perhaps this is an opportunity. Congress has been an embarrassment. Less embarrassing than Trump, nobody can come close to that, but an embarrassment nonetheless. They could say "We worked through a deal. Let's get it done. Vetoes allow for overrides. Someday the crazed elephant in the WH will be gone but for now let's just go with the deal we negotiated." . The result could be some much needed respect for our representatives.

[Chas_P]

kenberg, on 2020-December-23, 10:16, said:

This seems to be acknowledgement that Biden won.

That was not what was intended. It was just a Happy Holidays wish and my opinion that life goes on and that there are things more important than the occupant of the White House.

Best regards to you and Becky.

[kenberg]

Chas_P, on 2020-December-23, 20:17, said:

That was not what was intended. It was just a Happy Holidays wish and my opinion that life goes on and that there are things more important than the occupant of the White House.

Best regards to you and Becky.

Thanks, and the same to you.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The Triumph of Kleptocracy


By Franklin Foer, The Atlantic

Paul Manafort came of age in New Britain, Connecticut. His father, the garrulous mayor of that decaying factory town, taught him how to cobble together an electoral coalition, passing down the tricks of the trade that became the basis for the son's lucrative career as a political consultant. But as the local hardware manufacturers fled to foreign shores, the Mafia moved into town. To hear the local papers tell the story—or to read the counts alleged in a prosecutor's indictment—Paul's father, the local political boss, served as a protector of the DeCavalcante family. The charges against the father never stuck, but the example of those years did. Paul Manafort received a first-rate education in omertà.

For a brief moment, nearly two years ago, that education looked like it might be wasted. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's prosecutors believed that Paul Manafort—then clad in an orange jumpsuit, the dye fading from his news-anchor head of hair—would turn state's witness against Donald Trump.

In court, Mueller's lawyers told the judge that Manafort was the heart of their case. They had already nailed him for tax fraud and violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. They had trapped him in a perjurious tangle. And as they followed the trail of evidence, they noticed that Manafort's aide de camp was an asset of Russian intelligence. They had nabbed Manafort passing along confidential campaign data to a favored oligarch of the Kremlin, to whom he owed millions. Everything in the prosecutors' presentation suggested that they were on the cusp of a breakthrough. Manafort would be their cooperative witness, the key to their ability to tell a more expansive narrative about what had happened in the 2016 election.

But before prosecutors could achieve that revelation, the president made his move. Trump began to tease the prospect of a pardon for Manafort. While the Mueller report is a maddening document, deadened by its steadfast unwillingness to draw conclusions, it is unambiguous about Trump's treatment of Manafort. It describes how his tweets and statements about a pardon might have shaped Manafort's strategic calculus.

The head of the family had sent an unambiguous signal. Just then, the instincts from Manafort's old neighborhood kicked in.

The president clearly intended to obstruct justice. By implicitly promising a pardon, he thwarted Manafort's cooperation with Mueller, and wrecked the probe. Manafort might well have advanced Mueller's investigation to an even more damning conclusion. Instead, the stymied investigation ended prematurely. Rather than burying Trump, the final report contained enough hedging and ambiguities that it permitted the president to deem the whole enterprise a "hoax." Having lost its star witness, the Russia scandal—the most perilous threat to the Trump presidency—quickly faded from conversation.

Trump saved himself, and, in the end, so did Manafort. While he likely didn't enjoy his brief sojourn in prison, his silence has finally earned him a pardon. Even if he had cut a deal to cooperate, prosecutors would have likely forced him to serve a far longer sentence than he did; by obstructing the investigation, he has almost certainly come out ahead. At the beginning of the pandemic, a judge released him from prison. With the protective armor of his pardon, there's no chance of the feds sending him back.

Whatever the shortcomings of the Mueller investigation, prosecutors could always trumpet the convictions they'd won in the Manafort cases. During his long career in Washington, Manafort had worked to win acceptances for the world's authoritarian goons. He lobbied Congress to send foreign aid to their governments. With his public-relations campaigns, he scrubbed their images, so that the media ignored the assassinations of their enemies. Manafort was the architect of K Street in its most grotesque modern incarnation. By convicting Manafort for his work in Ukraine—where he served the oligarchs who looted the country and crushed democratic stirrings—prosecutors showed that even the slickest, most powerful influence peddlers could be brought to justice. They won a rousing triumph over the forces of kleptocracy.

But tonight, with Manafort's pardon, kleptocracy has successfully waited out its enemies. Under Donald Trump, the corruption of New Britain, the symbiosis of a criminal syndicate and government, has gone national. After years of omertà, Paul Manafort is howling for joy.

[kenberg]

kenberg, on 2020-December-23, 14:11, said:

Perhaps this is an opportunity. Congress has been an embarrassment. Less embarrassing than Trump, nobody can come close to that, but an embarrassment nonetheless. They could say "We worked through a deal. Let's get it done. Vetoes allow for overrides. Someday the crazed elephant in the WH will be gone but for now let's just go with the deal we negotiated." . The result could be some much needed respect for our representatives.

I'll quote myself here because I saw an opportunity and I think it is slipping away. As soon as Trump announced his threat the D leadership should have contacted the R leadership and said "We have an agreement, let's get it done. We will hold off on pushing for an increase in the amount if you can get your party together enough to override a veto". With immediate action along those lines it might have happened. Every hour that it does not happen the chance of success grows slimmer. This was a huge error.

Trump is being Trump. He saw all these stories about the bill, stories where the names mentioned were McConnell and Schumer nd so on. You could read the entire story and not once see the name Donald trump. He had to do something about that. And he did. Now the stories about the relief package feature Donald Trump. just the way he likes it to be.

I am sorry that this is the primary motivation for our president, but it is. And everyone knows that it is. $2,000 per person? No chance this would happen. Everyone knew it would not happen. And Donald Trump wanted it to happen? No. He doesn't give a rat's whiskers about what the people need. He wanted his name back in the story. For God's sake, everyone knows this by now. Abd still they got suckered in.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2020-December-25, 09:37, said:

I'll quote myself here because I saw an opportunity and I think it is slipping away. As soon as Trump announced his threat the D leadership should have contacted the R leadership and said "We have an agreement, let's get it done. We will hold off on pushing for an increase in the amount if you can get your party together enough to override a veto". With immediate action along those lines it might have happened. Every hour that it does not happen the chance of success grows slimmer. This was a huge error.

Trump is being Trump. He saw all these stories about the bill, stories where the names mentioned were McConnell and Schumer nd so on. You could read the entire story and not once see the name Donald trump. He had to do something about that. And he did. Now the stories about the relief package feature Donald Trump. just the way he likes it to be.

I am sorry that this is the primary motivation for our president, but it is. And everyone knows that it is. $2,000 per person? No chance this would happen. Everyone knew it would not happen. And Donald Trump wanted it to happen? No. He doesn't give a rat's whiskers about what the people need. He wanted his name back in the story. For God's sake, everyone knows this by now. Abd still they got suckered in.

Mike Pence in Florida explained (although not meaning to) why the Republicans will not support an override:

Quote

The grassroots organization People for Bernie on Tuesday advised the Democratic Party to take a page from an unlikely source—right-wing Vice President Mike Pence—after Pence told a rally crowd in Florida that progressives and Democrats "want to make rich people poorer, and poor people more comfortable."

my emphasis

A wonderful Christmas message from the Christian Right.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2020-December-25, 10:11, said:

Mike Pence in Florida explained (although not meaning to) why the Republicans will not support an override:

my emphasis

A wonderful Christmas message from the Christian Right.

Sure. But still I expected/hoped to see a better job of coping. Suppose that five seconds after Trump issued his veto threat Pelosi had said "We are sticking to our agreement, we will see that this bill gets through Congress (I guess it now has), and we hope the Rs will override a veto. We have a couple of Senate elections in Ga. The incumbents would be content to let the veto stand?

Maybe the R's would stand up to Trump and override, maybe they wouldn't but there would be a chance that they would and if they did not there could be consequences. Or maybe not. But the discussion would be about the members of Congress.

But as it is? Trump gets his name in the paper. Trump is the focus of the discussion. It's Trump, Trump and more Trump, just as he likes it to be. Did Pelosi and Schumer really not see this coming?

It's fine to denounce a snake for his evil intentions. But we also need to acknowledge his existence and then effectively deal with it. I don't know if I expected better, but I hoped for better. I'm getting really tired of watching as Ds lose the game and then compensate for the loss by explaining how unfair it all was.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2020-December-25, 10:37, said:

Sure. But still I expected/hoped to see a better job of coping. Suppose that five seconds after Trump issued his veto threat Pelosi had said "We are sticking to our agreement, we will see that this bill gets through Congress (I guess it now has), and we hope the Rs will override a veto. We have a couple of Senate elections in Ga. The incumbents would be content to let the veto stand?

Maybe the R's would stand up to Trump and override, maybe they wouldn't but there would be a chance that they would and if they did not there could be consequences. Or maybe not. But the discussion would be about the members of Congress.

But as it is? Trump gets his name in the paper. Trump is the focus of the discussion. It's Trump, Trump and more Trump, just as he likes it to be. Did Pelosi and Schumer really not see this coming?

It's fine to denounce a snake for his evil intentions. But we also need to acknowledge his existence and then effectively deal with it. I don't know if I expected better, but I hoped for better. I'm getting really tired of watching as Ds lose the game and then compensate for the loss by explaining how unfair it all was.

I happen to agree that Schumer and Pelosi are pretty well worthless in their leadership roles - unless it is fundraising. Both are good at raking in cash.

Somewhere along the way our form of government broke. It broke because people decided wining was all that mattered, power was its own reward. That can only be undone by cultural pressure. I'm not optimistic

[johnu]

kenberg, on 2020-December-25, 10:37, said:

Did Pelosi and Schumer really not see this coming?

Did anybody see the veto threat coming??? The Manchurian President and the White House were driving many of the items that the Manchurian President is now denouncing and it was a done deal, at least until the veto problem. Maybe they should have guessed that he would go schitzo but exactly how do you game plan for that??? You've got to work with the Repugs in the Senate who don't want to do anything, but at least you managed to get to some sort of agreement before the Schitzo in Chief blows things up.

[kenberg]

johnu, on 2020-December-25, 19:37, said:

Did anybody see the veto threat coming??? The Manchurian President and the White House were driving many of the items that the Manchurian President is now denouncing and it was a done deal, at least until the veto problem. Maybe they should have guessed that he would go schitzo but exactly how do you game plan for that??? You've got to work with the Repugs in the Senate who don't want to do anything, but at least you managed to get to some sort of agreement before the Schitzo in Chief blows things up.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.
The veto threat was made. No, I did not see it coming.
I was referring to what happened next.
I believe that anyone could see that the purpose of the threat was not to get something done, other than to get cause chaos, get trump's name back into the storyline of the bill, and generally just be as Trump is, will be and always has been. And then it seems to me very clear that the response should have been to stick with the agreement that was made and push for an override of the veto. Instead, Pelosi etc started in on oh yeah sure let's go for the $2,000. This was hopeless. That was obvious. And now things are looking pretty bad.

It's true that the agreed upon bill has many flaws. But it was something and it was badly needed. And there was an agreement between Ds and Rs. Now we are back to the usual crap, just as Trump intended. That's what I was talking about. The 2K was a fantasy, DT never ever expected it to happen, that was not his purpose, his purpose was to become the center of attention and get everyone fighting again. And he succeeded. nobody can stop Trump from being Trump, but I hoped for a more capable response.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2020-December-25, 19:57, said:

Sorry if I wasn't clear.
The veto threat was made. No, I did not see it coming.
I was referring to what happened next.
I believe that anyone could see that the purpose of the threat was not to get something done, other than to get cause chaos, get trump's name back into the storyline of the bill, and generally just be as Trump is, will be and always has been. And then it seems to me very clear that the response should have been to stick with the agreement that was made and push for an override of the veto. Instead, Pelosi etc started in on oh yeah sure let's go for the $2,000. This was hopeless. That was obvious. And now things are looking pretty bad.

It's true that the agreed upon bill has many flaws. But it was something and it was badly needed. And there was an agreement between Ds and Rs. Now we are back to the usual crap, just as Trump intended. That's what I was talking about. The 2K was a fantasy, DT never ever expected it to happen, that was not his purpose, his purpose was to become the center of attention and get everyone fighting again. And he succeeded. nobody can stop Trump from being Trump, but I hoped for a more capable response.

I admit to not understanding politics at the level of Pelosi and Schumer. Both seem to be quite pragmatic, to a point of stagnation. Republicans are quite good at stealing the message and framing. Democrats, no. There should be non-stop harping by the Democrats on every news show and radio show that will have them just what Ken is saying - Trump only wants to be the center of attention. Why they don't is a mystery. It seems Pelosi is especially fearful of confrontation - Trump could have been impeached more than once and still could be. That she is unwilling to use the powers she does have I don't grasp unless she thinks it will do long term harm or is pointless - but getting your message out is not pointless - just look at Trump has done with nothing but a name.

[johnu]

kenberg, on 2020-December-25, 19:57, said:

It's true that the agreed upon bill has many flaws. But it was something and it was badly needed. And there was an agreement between Ds and Rs. Now we are back to the usual crap, just as Trump intended. That's what I was talking about. The 2K was a fantasy, DT never ever expected it to happen, that was not his purpose, his purpose was to become the center of attention and get everyone fighting again. And he succeeded. nobody can stop Trump from being Trump, but I hoped for a more capable response.

If Trump was serious, he could "force" the Repug Senators to vote for 2000 checks. How??? By threatening the full force of Manchurian President tweets threatening them with primary opponents and campaigning against them the next time they run. How do you think he avoided getting convicted in his impeachment trial?

Repugs didn't want to give even the $600 checks because the people out of work or with greatly reduced income would just waste it on luxuries like basic food needs and shelter for their families. They only agreed because White House officials said they had to accept those payments. Now the Sociopath in Chief says he will veto the bill, but isn't willing to actually put on a full court press to make the Repugs go along with him. What would be an acceptable amount? Who knows??? He snuck out of town to Mar a Lago because he had an urgent golf game to attend to.

[Winstonm]

johnu, on 2020-December-26, 04:57, said:

If Trump was serious, he could "force" the Repug Senators to vote for 2000 checks. How??? By threatening the full force of Manchurian President tweets threatening them with primary opponents and campaigning against them the next time they run. How do you think he avoided getting convicted in his impeachment trial?

Repugs didn't want to give even the $600 checks because the people out of work or with greatly reduced income would just waste it on luxuries like basic food needs and shelter for their families. They only agreed because White House officials said they had to accept those payments. Now the Sociopath in Chief says he will veto the bill, but isn't willing to actually put on a full court press to make the Repugs go along with him. What would be an acceptable amount? Who knows??? He snuck out of town to Mar a Lago because he had an urgent golf game to attend to.

Quote

Repugs didn't want to give even the $600 checks because the people out of work or with greatly reduced income would just waste it on luxuries like basic food needs and shelter for their families

Or, as Ebenezer Pence said recently. Democrats want to make "poor people more comfortable." Not starving to death or living on the street qualifies as "more comfortable", I guess. I'm surprised this wasn't his quote:

Quote

If they would rather die,” said Pence Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

[y66]

John Barro at Business Insider said:

By the way, not sure if this has occurred to Trump, but he should think about it: If he kills the Coronabus, and it has to be re-done under Biden, what's stopping Congress from stripping out provisions that were only in there to make Trump happy, like the meals deduction?

Will the orange turd go to the mat for $2,000 survival checks and risk losing $220+ billion in tax breaks for the rich? Seems plausible.

[kenberg]

The biggest problem with Trump right now: he is extremely petty and vindictive. It doesn't take much to provoke him into destructive responses as many of his former hirees have learned. Well, the country has rejected him for a second term. Trump punishes those who do not kiss his butt..

We have to cope with this.

A start is to realize that the 2K has nothing to do with wanting to help people or help the country. It sabotaged cooperation. That was its purpose and it worked. There will be more.. There are a lot of things that need doing, there are many topics to be discussed, but first we need to get through the next 25 or 26 days. Trump will not be pardoning the country for rejecting him.

[Chas_P]

I have a question. And I'm not looking for a fight; I'm looking for enlightenment. Exactly how do you see life improving for the average American on January 21, 2020? What do you think Harris/Biden will do to make things "all better" for all of us? Ken, you go first. I respect your opinion.

[kenberg]

Chas_P, on 2020-December-26, 19:56, said:

I have a question. And I'm not looking for a fight; I'm looking for enlightenment. Exactly how do you see life improving for the average American on January 21, 2020? What do you think Harris/Biden will do to make things "all better" for all of us? Ken, you go first. I respect your opinion.

I think that we are in for an extremely tough time. So it is more what I hope for than what I predict.

And I am not going to list a bunch of policies, at least not exactly.

Much of what I say will be my view of where we are and I really see it as pretty awful. Right now it's like being on a bus driven by a petulant drunk. I hope for more stability. More than one political cartoon is along the following lines: Someone says Biden is boring, someone else gives a sigh of relief and says isn't it wonderful.

We have to cope with covid. I have no illusion that Biden will make it go away. But I don't expect Biden to tell me that it's no big deal and it will go away like a miracle.

We have to deal with the economy. I am hoping that a year from now, after Ds and Rs finally negotiate something they can agree to, the President will not, a day or two before the government is to shut down, announce seemingly out of the blue that they have really done a crappy job, that the amount in a major program that they have, with difficulty, agreed to has to be more than tripled or else he will veto it.

I hope we can somehow get back on board with allies of the past.

Perhaps more than anything else I hope the Biden presidency will be conducted in a manner that I do not see as a national embarrassment. I did not vote for the first Gorge Bush, GWBH. Perhaps I should have, I think he was a very decent gut and did a decent job. But however I might have voted, I could respect him as our president. That is simply not the case with the guy that is there now.

Here is another way to say all this: I expect that I and others on this thread, those who vote in the US, usually vote D. I also expect that we disagree about various matters. We can discuss such matters. But first we have to get the drunken nut job away from the wheel. There are people that I disagree with, that happens all the time. I am comfortable with them. There are other people who I believe should never be put in charge of anything, even if I were to agree with their ideas. That's Trump. When he is gone, the rest of us can try to work through things, maybe not with total cooperation but at least with some sort of sanity.