29 thoughts on “News/Politics 11-2-19

  1. Culling the herd.

    First Beto.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/beto-o-rourke-ends-2020-campaign-says-he-ll-work-n1074811

    “Beto O’Rourke ends his presidential bid after campaign failed to take off

    The former Democratic congressman made the announcement just hours before a major political dinner in Iowa, where he had been scheduled to speak.”

    ———

    And Kamala might as well. It’s inevitable.

    https://nypost.com/2019/11/01/kamala-harris-fires-entire-new-hampshire-campaign-field-team/

    “Kamala Harris has reportedly axed her entire campaign field team in New Hampshire — the same day fellow struggling Democratic candidate Beto O’Rourke announced he would end his bid for the nomination.

    The Harris campaign closed all three of her field offices in the state and laid off more than 10 workers, CBS News reported.

    “A handful of staffers will run a scaled-down campaign out of the Manchester headquarters,” a campaign spokesperson told CBS News in a statement.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Now about Joe……

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7640737/Joe-Biden-boasts-Iowa-tax-credits-president-want-suggests-hes-VP.html

    “Former Vice President Joe Biden suggested Wednesday in Iowa that he thinks he’s still current Vice President Joe Biden, telling an Iowa reporter about environmental tax credits that ‘the president and I’ jointly want to put in place.

    Rattling off a litany of green initiatives he wants to see rural America embrace, Biden said offering federal tax incentives would help nudge the nation toward a carbon-neutral future.

    ‘It would also help people with housing, if you were able to continue to have what we propose, and I propose, what the president and I—’ he said, before stopping himself.

    He continued a second later, saying Americans should ‘have, you know, tax credits for insulating homes, tax credits for making all businesses – all buildings, you know – energy contained, et cetera.'”

    Like

  3. Sadly, to Democrats, it is nothing more. 😦

    Like

  4. Shocking no one with a brain…..

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/31/first-common-core-high-school-grads-worst-prepared-for-college-in-15-years/

    “First Common Core High School Grads Worst-Prepared For College In 15 Years

    This is the opposite of what we were told would happen with trillions of taxpayer dollars and an entire generation of children who deserve not to have been guinea pigs in a failed national experiment.”

    “For the third time in a row since Common Core was fully phased in nationwide, U.S. student test scores on the nation’s broadest and most respected test have dropped, a reversal of an upward trend between 1990 and 2015. Further, the class of 2019, the first to experience all four high school years under Common Core, is the worst-prepared for college in 15 years, according to a new report.

    The National Assessment of Educational Progress is a federally mandated test given every other year in reading and mathematics to students in grades four and eight. (Periodically it also tests other subjects and grade levels.) In the latest results, released Wednesday, American students slid yet again on nearly every measure.

    Reading was the worst hit, with both fourth and eighth graders losing ground compared to the last year tested, 2017. Eighth graders also slid in math, although fourth graders improved by one point in math overall. Thanks to Neal McCluskey at the Cato Institute, here’s a graph showing the score changes since NAEP was instituted in the 1990s.”

    ————-

    Pretty pathetic.

    Like

  5. Dems tried to force ObamaCare regs that Trump dismantled back into effect.

    Thankfully, the Senate squashed it.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/11/senate-blocks-democrat-attempt-to-reinstate-obamacare-rules-trump-eliminated/

    “Senate Blocks Democrat Attempt to Reinstate ObamaCare Rules Trump Eliminated

    “Senators voted 43-52 on the resolution” with only Susan Collins (R-ME) voting with Democrats”

    “Just days after taking office, President Trump signed an Executive Order returning power over health care and insurance to the states. Although Congressional Republicans clearly have no intention of repealing ObamaCare, Trump went on to further weaken the disastrous health insurance scheme of his predecessor.

    Democrats are not happy. They attempted on Wednesday to roll back a Trump administration rule that permits states to ignore sections of ObamaCare and to loosen requirements on health insurance that increased costs on individuals and businesses within the states.

    The Senate blocked their effort, with only one Republican, Sen. Susan Collins (ME), voting with the Democrats to reinstate the crushing ObamaCare rules.

    The Hill reports:

    The Senate on Wednesday rejected a Democratic effort to roll back a Trump administration rule that allows states to ignore parts of ObamaCare.

    Senators voted 43-52 on the resolution, falling short of the simple majority needed to pass the chamber.

    Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was the only Republican to vote for the resolution.

    Democrats wanted to overturn a Trump administration rule that makes it easier for states to opt out of certain ObamaCare requirements and prioritize cheaper, less-inclusive plans than ones offered under ObamaCare.

    Pre-existing conditions are a political and fiscal quagmire for both Democrats and Republicans because there is no way to force insurance companies to cover these without raising costs down the line and across the board.”

    Liked by 1 person

  6. The charade collapses again.

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/01/alex-vindmans-impeachment-testimony-completely-rested-on-his-personal-opinions/

    “Alex Vindman’s Impeachment Testimony Completely Rested On His Personal Opinions

    Alex Vindman’s testimony about the July 25 call between the two presidents does not add any new facts. So, what does he say? He offers his opinions about the wisdom of the call. That’s it.”

    “A lot of rhetoric is being thrown around, both in print media and on TV, about Lt. Col. Alex Vindman’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee about President Trump’s phone call with the president of Ukraine. He has been lauded by Democrats and the press (excuse the redundancy), and most of the commentary and reporting ignores any analysis of his allegations about the call.

    In Vindman’s testimony, I see more appeals to emotion than to analysis and reason. For example, he talks about how he served in combat as an infantryman, holds a Purple Heart for wounds, and was an immigrant as a child. I therefore venture this analysis of his prepared statement and whether Vindman “has done nothing more or less than his duty,” as some have suggested, as well as the significance of his highly touted “personal knowledge” of that call.

    Because committee Chairman Adam Schiff has kept Vindman’s oral testimony secret, I focus on Vindman’s prepared statement, which is public. I will also address only his testimony about the July 25 call between President Trump and Ukraine President Zelensky.

    All About Vindman’s Opinions, Not the Facts
    First, as discussed below, Vindman’s testimony about the July 25 call between the two presidents does not add any new facts. So, what does he say? He offers his opinions about the wisdom of the call. That’s it. His testimony about the substance of that call consists of five sentences at the end of his prepared testimony. Those five sentences basically comprise two opinions.”

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Dershowitz explains that a partisan impeachment vote is exactly what the framers feared.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/468483-a-partisan-impeachment-vote-is-exactly-what-the-framers-feared

    “The House vote to establish procedures for a possible impeachment of President Trump, along party lines with two Democrats opposing and no Republicans favoring, was exactly was Alexander Hamilton feared in discussing the impeachment provisions laid out in the Constitution.

    Hamilton warned of the “greatest danger” that the decision to move forward with impeachment will “be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” He worried that the tools of impeachment would be wielded by the “most cunning or most numerous factions” and lack the “requisite neutrality toward those whose conduct would be the subject of scrutiny.”

    It is almost as if this founding father were looking down at the House vote from heaven and describing what transpired this week. Impeachment is an extraordinary tool to be used only when the constitutional criteria are met. These criteria are limited and include only “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Hamilton described these as being “of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

    His use of the term “political” has been widely misunderstood in history. It does not mean that the process of impeachment and removal should be political in the partisan sense. Hamilton distinctly distinguished between the nature of the constitutional crimes, denoting them as political, while insisting that the process for impeachment and removal must remain scrupulously neutral and nonpartisan among members of Congress.

    Thus, no impeachment should ever move forward without bipartisan support. That is a tall order in our age of hyperpartisan politics in which party loyalty leaves little room for neutrality. Proponents of the House vote argue it is only about procedures and not about innocence or guilt, and that further investigation may well persuade some Republicans to place principle over party and to vote for impeachment, or some Democrats to vote against impeachment. While that is entirely possible, the House vote would seem to make such nonpartisan neutrality extremely unlikely.”

    Like

  8. It is fun to be a Trumpkin. Impeach Biden!

    Like

  9. I’m coming to believe that there will never be a real impeachment.
    That will leave them with nothing to talk about.
    The Republican Senate will not remove him.
    The Democratic house will have lost and look bad.
    It will become a campaign issue for Trump.
    Democratic House members will be losers in the upcoming election.

    Bottom line? Nobody in the country cares at all what the president said to the president of Ukraine. That means that if that is all they have, they have nothing.
    Except for uncontrolled hatred. They have nothing to go on.
    Move on.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Back in the Dark Ages when I was just a cub reporter on a college newspaper, we were told you had to understand both sides of the story before you could report it well. Our job was to report information from both sides and let the reader assess and make their own conclusions.

    We’re missing this aspect of journalism now, which is why non-mainstream or even professional reporters can provide some insight— by simply sharing a different angle on a story.

    Concerned about the Christians Kurds, yes, but this is interesting (it’s not about the Kurds, chess players)

    http://carolineglick.com/al-baghdadi-and-trumps-syrian-chessboard/

    Liked by 4 people

  11. Like

  12. Michelle, If Trump is playing chess, why do his former Chief of Staff, Secretary of State, Counselor, etc regard him as a “dope”, “moron”, “fifth grader”, etc. Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct one.

    Like

  13. I’m just watching and not taking a stand. I’m horrified by some things, shocked by others and then surprised. I have no idea what’s really going on because there are so few honest journalists out there reporting on him.

    I will note that chaos theory as a business practice applied to government is . . . different.

    The Washington Post used to be a paper run by journalists. It’s now owned by Amazon’s Jeff Bezos. At one time, the editors were careful of professional ethics (You may not have liked Watergate, but the reporters were challenged on their information and techniques by the editors. Using a Deep Throat should never be standard operating procedures).

    By not providing both sides, or at least a semblance of both sides, to put the stories in context, I can’t really tell what’s going on by the reporting done in mainstream papers anymore.

    That means to get a glimmer of understand, you have to read these outliers and bloggers–who may or may not be journalists–but who at least give a different persepctive on the story.

    That’s a much harder way to assess what is happening and requires some personal knowledge about the way the world works. For that reason, it is difficult for the “civlians” aka regular people, to follow and have a glimmer of understanding of where truth might lie.

    The travesty of modern journalism, to me, is the lack of ability to get a full picture of events.

    I don’t need a young person with no experience reporting, living, or obtaining historical knowledge to tell me what to believe. I’ve lived through some of these events. I know many of the reporters are wrong.

    Note, the Soviets used to read Pravda from the end forward. If any truth was written, it usually was buried in the next to the last paragraph, or maybe third or fourth from the bottom. That’s what I saw happening in one of the stories in The Federalist’s account of last week at the Washington Post

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/01/the-washington-post-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-week/

    Liked by 4 people

  14. The answer to your question (it was even though you used the wrong punctuation) is right in front of you Ricky.

    “Former”…….

    Disgruntled employees mad at and talking badly about their previous employer is nothing new.

    I guess you missed the obvious, huh?

    Like

  15. Michelle, The problem is that now there are at least three sides. There is the liberal side, which is slanted but has some basis in reality. There is a traditional conservative side which is only represented by a few people in Congress (Hurd, Amash, Romney, a muted Sasse and a few others), but is well represented on editorial pages by people like Bret Stephens, Mona Charen, Jonah Goldberg, George Will and others.

    Then there is the Trump Cult side which has few fixed principles and no commitment to reality, but is constantly having to switch positions or invent new “facts” or distractions to defend and protect their infantile idol from his latest misstep. I actually think the mainstream press gives way too much coverage to the actions and half-witted comments of Trump sycophants like Gaetz, Giuliani, Graham, Jeffress, etc. In the 60s or 70s, I don’t believe a more centralized main stream media would have given as much attention to such clowns. They also would have “fact-checked” the Trumpkins much harder if the Trumpsters were quoted.

    Like

  16. Do you even hear yourself?

    You are what you describe in your last paragraph you clown.

    You’ve been off the hook, you’ve also been wrong about everything, you slander, libel, and defame people, you daily post proven lies that don’t withstand scrutiny, question people’s salvation, and assorted other underhanded and low class garbage, all for having the nerve to disagree with you and your heroes.

    Seek help, or at least some medication.

    Like

  17. 9:34. Nice try.

    The “dope”, “moron”, and “5th grader” comments were made and reported while McMaster, Tillerson, Kelly, Cohn and others were working in the Trump Administration. They were generally contemporaneous responses to the latest Trumpian idiocy which the speakers were being asked to clean up.

    Like

  18. It is going to be real interesting when the census figures come out. I think that Texas is now receiving more immigrants from California than from the North. Based on recent travels to Montana, Utah and Colorado, I think more Californians are moving to the Mountain West than to Texas.

    At some point the Hispanics are going to kick the Gavin Newsome/Jerry Brown types out of office. Then it will really get interesting.

    Like

  19. Sometimes there isnt two sides of a story. A man is caught on video stabbing someone to death…there’s not another side to the story. Perhaps mitgating circumstances but not another side. The transcripts reveal Trump asked a foreign country to dig dirt on a political opppnent and implying military aid was on the line. There’s no other side here…the transcripts were released by the accused. Its his story he just thinks there’s nothing wrong here. However, this is clearly worthy of impeachment if rule of law still mean something.

    Like

  20. Michelle (9:32) “I have no idea what’s really going on because there are so few honest journalists out there reporting on him.” …. (and kudos, too, to the rest of what she said). Amen, sister. I try to keep up but frankly I just don’t completely believe either side right now. It’s all a rush of partisan noise and bickering, back and forth.

    I’m heartsick over the state of journalism, but I do believe, in time, these horrible mistakes will be seen more clearly and what was once an honorable and trustworthy craft will pull right-side-up again. Right now it’s underwater and probably will be for some time considering what’s being taught in J schools and the embarrassing state of our current political landscape.

    I felt so complimented the other day when someone (who doesn’t know me but we’d been texting about a story I was looking into) called me an “old school” journalist — after I explained to her that my job was not to embarrass or otherwise rip anyone, but rather to hear both sides out with a fair mind and report both sides. I trust readers to make the right choices when they have a full, unbiased (as much as is humanly possible) and dispassionate presentation of the facts. They’re getting none of that right now from most of the national/political media.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Many US journalists have made no bones about being out to “get” Trump ever since he was elected.

    Now, the other side — and in politics, yes, there usually is another side, or two or three — has gone just as deep underwater in its determination to “get” their opponents.

    I’m thinking most voters are getting more than fed up with all of it by now.

    How that’ll play out or look in 2020 is anyone’s guess at this point.

    Like

  22. From what I understand about the phone call, it seems to be on the line and up to (much) interpretation of motives and other elements, at least barring any more information. Not really a cut-and-dried case, though I probably wouldn’t be surprised by much of what Trump may be doing behind the scenes, frankly. Then again, I haven’t been reading a whole lot about it, I’m kind of on national politics burnout mode again, for the time being.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. 2020

    https://apnews.com/f8149c3ca0e7461bb3cc3bd303063eff

    _______________________________________

    1 Year Out: A divided nation lurches toward 2020 election
    By JULIE PACE

    WASHINGTON (AP) — One year from Sunday, voters will decide whether to grant President Donald Trump a second term in office, an election that will be a referendum on Trump’s vision for America’s culture and role in the world.

    Much is unknown about how the United States and its politics will look on Nov. 3, 2020.

    Who will Trump’s opponent be? How will Democrats resolve the ideological, generational and demographic questions roiling their primary? Will a strong economy shore up Trump’s support or will recession warning signs turn into a reality? Will Trump face voters as just the third American president to have been impeached by the House of Representatives?

    This much seems certain: The nation will plunge into the election as deeply divided as it has been politically in more than half a century, when cities were in flames with protests over war and civil rights.

    “It seems like Republicans and Democrats are intractable,” said Mark Updegrove, a presidential historian and chairman of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Foundation. “They are both adhering to their own versions of reality, whether they’re based in truth or not.” …

    … The biggest known unknown for both parties may be how the ongoing impeachment proceedings will be viewed by Americans one year from now. …

    … But like the broader contours of American politics, the impeachment proceedings are so far breaking along partisan lines. A vote last week on the rules for the impeachment process passed with support from all but two Democrats. Every Republican voted no.

    Those numbers would still put Democrats in position to impeach Trump in the House, though acquittal in the Republican-controlled Senate looks all but certain. Still, it would leave Trump as the first president facing reelection after impeachment.

    Updegrove, the presidential historian, said the question a year from now will be whether that matters.

    “If not, what will matter to the American people as a whole?” he asked. “Is there anything?”
    ___________________________________

    Like

  24. “sometimes there isn’t two sides to a story”

    That, indeed, is the working theory in mainstream journalism today and it has opened the door wide for the extremely subjective reporting we’re now seeing.

    Like

  25. HRW has a point, but many take that point to mean that certain conservative views are hateful and thus not worth learning about.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.