Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
babylonsister
babylonsister's Journal
babylonsister's Journal
December 11, 2022
Posted on Sun, Dec 11th, 2022 by Jason Easley
Even For Chuck Todd, Arguing Against A Criminal Referral Of Trump Is A New Low
Chuck Todd said that he could argue both sides of a Trump criminal referral, but he only argued why Trump should not be referred for prosecution.
Transcript via Meet The Press:
Donald Trump tried to overthrow the United States government, and Chuck Todd is worried about adding negativity to the ‘stew’ by referring the former president for prosecution.
It is almost like Todd is incapable of seeing that there should be consequences for trying to overthrow the government, and a criminal referral is not the same thing as an attempted coup.
The corporate media chronically fails the nation and the American people on the issue of democracy, but Chuck Todd’s false equivalence is a special level of failure that helps to endanger American democracy.
Even For Chuck Todd, Arguing Against A Criminal Referral Of Trump Is A New Low
https://www.politicususa.com/2022/12/11/even-for-chuck-todd-arguing-against-a-criminal-referral-of-trump-is-a-new-low.htmlPosted on Sun, Dec 11th, 2022 by Jason Easley
Even For Chuck Todd, Arguing Against A Criminal Referral Of Trump Is A New Low
Chuck Todd said that he could argue both sides of a Trump criminal referral, but he only argued why Trump should not be referred for prosecution.
Transcript via Meet The Press:
PREET BHARARA:
Well, look, it is not their role to make a criminal case, although they’re making a referral. And if you look into the debate, what the value and virtue is of making a criminal referral–
CHUCK TODD:
I can argue both sides of that, good or bad.
PREET BHARARA:
I mean, to me, it’s largely symbolic because at the time we first started having this debate about a referral, it wasn’t clear how far along the Justice Department was. Since then, the Justice Department has appointed a special counsel, as we mentioned. And they had a lot of staff they’ve added to the matter. And they’re far along, and they’ve issued subpoenas that we’ve heard reports about. So they’re investigating this thing anyway.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you think that criminal report actually complicates things more than it helps?
PREET BHARARA:
I don’t think it complicates things. I actually don’t think it does anything for the Justice Department. I don’t think it prompts them to do anything more quickly or more aggressively.
CHUCK TODD:
But it doesn’t add negatively to the political stew? The word you don’t want to use.
PREET BHARARA:
You could argue that. I don’t know why they feel the need to do it. I think they want to make a statement for themselves. I think it has no impact on the Justice Department whatsoever.
Well, look, it is not their role to make a criminal case, although they’re making a referral. And if you look into the debate, what the value and virtue is of making a criminal referral–
CHUCK TODD:
I can argue both sides of that, good or bad.
PREET BHARARA:
I mean, to me, it’s largely symbolic because at the time we first started having this debate about a referral, it wasn’t clear how far along the Justice Department was. Since then, the Justice Department has appointed a special counsel, as we mentioned. And they had a lot of staff they’ve added to the matter. And they’re far along, and they’ve issued subpoenas that we’ve heard reports about. So they’re investigating this thing anyway.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you think that criminal report actually complicates things more than it helps?
PREET BHARARA:
I don’t think it complicates things. I actually don’t think it does anything for the Justice Department. I don’t think it prompts them to do anything more quickly or more aggressively.
CHUCK TODD:
But it doesn’t add negatively to the political stew? The word you don’t want to use.
PREET BHARARA:
You could argue that. I don’t know why they feel the need to do it. I think they want to make a statement for themselves. I think it has no impact on the Justice Department whatsoever.
Donald Trump tried to overthrow the United States government, and Chuck Todd is worried about adding negativity to the ‘stew’ by referring the former president for prosecution.
It is almost like Todd is incapable of seeing that there should be consequences for trying to overthrow the government, and a criminal referral is not the same thing as an attempted coup.
The corporate media chronically fails the nation and the American people on the issue of democracy, but Chuck Todd’s false equivalence is a special level of failure that helps to endanger American democracy.
December 11, 2022
It was the first detailed account of Griner’s release since the historic prisoner swap on Thursday, in which U.S. officials traded Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout for the athlete, who was convicted on drug charges for transporting a marijuana vape. The move came after an intense pressure campaign on the White House from activists, politicians, and Griner’s wife to secure her release.
more...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-official-roger-carstens-details-brittney-griners-first-moments-of-freedom?ref=home
White House Official Details Brittney Griner's First Moments of Freedom
Media
White House Official Details Brittney Griner’s First Moments of Freedom
A WHOLE NEW WORLD
Roger Carstens, the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, described what it was like taking the WNBA star home.
Corbin Bolies
Media Reporter
Published Dec. 11, 2022 11:27AM ET
CNN
She waited 10 months to see a friendly face. When she finally did, she wanted to talk.
It was the first thing Roger Carstens, the Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, noticed when he arrived in Russia to meet WNBA star Brittney Griner and take her home. “When she finally got onto the U.S. plane, I said: ‘Brittney, you must have been through a lot over the last 10 months. Here’s your seat. Please feel free to decompress. We will give you your space,’” he told CNN’s Dana Bash on State of the Union. “She said, ‘Oh, no, I have been in prison for 10 months now listening to Russian. I want to talk. But, first of all, who are these guys?”
He described how Griner went to talk to everyone aboard the plane, inquiring about their lives and getting to know them. They then chatted for the entirety of the 10-hour flight, an experience that encapsulated her humanity and was a striking phenomenon to see for someone in captivity for nearly a year, Carstens said.
“I was left with the impression that this is an intelligent, passionate, compassionate, humble, interesting person,” he said. “A patriotic person, but, above all, authentic. I hate the fact that I had to meet her in this manner, but I actually felt blessed having had a chance to get to know her.”
It was the first detailed account of Griner’s release since the historic prisoner swap on Thursday, in which U.S. officials traded Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout for the athlete, who was convicted on drug charges for transporting a marijuana vape. The move came after an intense pressure campaign on the White House from activists, politicians, and Griner’s wife to secure her release.
more...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-official-roger-carstens-details-brittney-griners-first-moments-of-freedom?ref=home
December 9, 2022
Biden says this within fifteen seconds of the start of his speech. Within the span of one minute of his speech, he lands at this tender spot of recollection. He brings those people to that spot just like that, and effortlessly. He accomplishes this simply by acknowledging where they are.
But see that he tells them to retrieve that memory.
What is he doing here, rhetorically?
I really had to sit back and consider this for a moment. Obviously, he’s the President; he’s performing ceremonial duties. Boilerplate on the surface: something that can be discharged as a matter of duty.
But he’s not doing that.
Again, he’s insisting that these audience members, the ones who suffered such immediate and unexpected loss as comes with gun violence: he’s telling them to hold that thought in mind. And I thought about other leaders who might be considered destructive charismatics, the ones who stir strife in order to find followers. It’s so easy to make that personal connection with those who hold grudges or other wounds yet to heal, and then exploit that to turn people vengeful and then to use that excitement to drive whatever cause.
But see what Biden is doing. Yes, he touts his policy achievements and advances what he sees as his vision for the future, but then he does more.
That’s when I realized: Biden is a healer.
He’s healing those people. He’s providing a balm. He told them to bring that memory of loss out, to examine it in its fullness, and then he lacquered over that like the nacre of a pearl. Because the more a person can do that, that rock—that forever irritant that is always kept inside where the tender parts are—the more one can attend to it, the smoother it can become.
Now look. I’m not a religious person. I identify as agnostic (though I find the interpretation of religion fascinating). But the event was held in a church, one that reflects his faith, and certainly those who were gathered there felt a symmetry between Biden’s words and their surroundings.
He’s not a miracle worker. We as a nation are at a crossroads right now, and it’s not immediately clear how the future will open up. Vista’s obscure. Rabblerousers proliferate their invective, and normal people of five years ago now have been fractionated toward this newer, sour position of exclusion and, yes, violence. We may encounter precipices yet.
But we are supremely lucky.
Biden is understated.
I didn’t know that was a power.
"I want to share something I learned about Joe Biden yesterday."
EDIT: I DID NOT WRITE THIS, novapsyche on daily kos did. I did think that was evident. 
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/12/8/2140768/-I-want-to-share-something-I-learned-about-Joe-Biden-yesterday
I want to share something I learned about Joe Biden yesterday.
novapsyche
Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)
Thursday December 08, 2022 · 3:23 PM EST
Share this article
I happened to be flipping through the News reel section of YouTube and saw that there was a clip of Biden giving remarks about gun violence, just earlier in the afternoon. I didn’t know he was scheduled to give remarks on gun violence, I thought. I knew his overall stance on the issue but saw that the clip was a mere 8 or so minutes, and I decided to invest my time.
He spoke at the 10th Annual National Vigil for Victims of Gun Violence, and while his audience was ostensibly everyone listening, including those of us at home, his real audience were exactly those touched by such violence. He spoke directly to them, and the rest of us… were merely witnessing.
In the first thirty seconds of his taking the stage and thanking the stewards of the event, he directly equalizes himself with those who have suffered huge, almost unimaginable personal loss. He’s speaking directly to them, asking them to voluntarily do something that occurs to them almost certainly unintentionally all the time: to recover that memory of loss.
Folks, events like this are hard. They’re hard for all of you, because it brings back the very moment that everything happened, no matter how many years pass, no matter how many years go by. And it brings it back.
Biden says this within fifteen seconds of the start of his speech. Within the span of one minute of his speech, he lands at this tender spot of recollection. He brings those people to that spot just like that, and effortlessly. He accomplishes this simply by acknowledging where they are.
But see that he tells them to retrieve that memory.
To all of you here tonight, it’s under different circumstances, but I know a little bit what the loss feels like. It’ll be an anniversary on the 18th of this month that I lost my wife and daughter and nearly lost my two sons when a tractor trailer broadsided them. And it’s not long after that, the anniversary of losing my son. I know that feeling.
Everyone is different, but I know that feeling. You know, it’s like a black hole in the middle of your chest you’re being dragged into. And you never know if there’s ever a way out.
Everyone is different, but I know that feeling. You know, it’s like a black hole in the middle of your chest you’re being dragged into. And you never know if there’s ever a way out.
What is he doing here, rhetorically?
I really had to sit back and consider this for a moment. Obviously, he’s the President; he’s performing ceremonial duties. Boilerplate on the surface: something that can be discharged as a matter of duty.
But he’s not doing that.
And what I admire so much about all of you is you show up and remember, because remembering brings it back — the very moment that it happened.
Again, he’s insisting that these audience members, the ones who suffered such immediate and unexpected loss as comes with gun violence: he’s telling them to hold that thought in mind. And I thought about other leaders who might be considered destructive charismatics, the ones who stir strife in order to find followers. It’s so easy to make that personal connection with those who hold grudges or other wounds yet to heal, and then exploit that to turn people vengeful and then to use that excitement to drive whatever cause.
But see what Biden is doing. Yes, he touts his policy achievements and advances what he sees as his vision for the future, but then he does more.
Scripture says, “The light shines in darkness, and darkness has not overcome it.”
To all of you here tonight, you are the light. You are literally the light. And your loved ones, your friends, they’re the light. And they’ll always be with you, no matter what happens. They’re always with you.
How many of you ask yourself, “What would my son or daughter want me to do at this moment” They’re in your heart. They’re part of you. They’re always going to be with you.
To all of you here tonight, you are the light. You are literally the light. And your loved ones, your friends, they’re the light. And they’ll always be with you, no matter what happens. They’re always with you.
How many of you ask yourself, “What would my son or daughter want me to do at this moment” They’re in your heart. They’re part of you. They’re always going to be with you.
That’s when I realized: Biden is a healer.
He’s healing those people. He’s providing a balm. He told them to bring that memory of loss out, to examine it in its fullness, and then he lacquered over that like the nacre of a pearl. Because the more a person can do that, that rock—that forever irritant that is always kept inside where the tender parts are—the more one can attend to it, the smoother it can become.
Now look. I’m not a religious person. I identify as agnostic (though I find the interpretation of religion fascinating). But the event was held in a church, one that reflects his faith, and certainly those who were gathered there felt a symmetry between Biden’s words and their surroundings.
He’s not a miracle worker. We as a nation are at a crossroads right now, and it’s not immediately clear how the future will open up. Vista’s obscure. Rabblerousers proliferate their invective, and normal people of five years ago now have been fractionated toward this newer, sour position of exclusion and, yes, violence. We may encounter precipices yet.
But we are supremely lucky.
Biden is understated.
I didn’t know that was a power.
December 9, 2022
12 mins ago
The Media Still Doesn’t Know How to Cover Trump’s Extremism
His call for the “termination” of the US Constitution is the latest example.
David Corn
The day after Donald Trump, a former president and the leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, called for the “termination” of provisions of the US Constitution governing elections and essentially demanded that he be declared the “rightful winner” of the 2020 election, neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post ran a front-page story reporting Trump’s call for ripping up portions of the nation’s founding document. No mention of this even appeared in the Times that day. Trump’s unprecedented and dangerous statement was not deemed a big deal. This raised a question: Have major media players still not figured out how to cover Trump’s extremism?
snip//
The predictable had occurred. Trump made a preposterous remark. Democrats soundly excoriated him, and Republicans mealy-mouthed the matter. The media reported the fuss, and we all move on. But is there another way to cover this? Could news organizations better frame this development as a controversy of profound and lasting significance? A leading contender for the presidency—a job in which the top priority is to “protect and defend the Constitution”—had said screw that and displayed a desire to gain power as an autocrat. Trump reaffirmed that he is a threat to the nation’s constitutional order. (See January 6.) Might that warrant more oh-shit notice?
snip//
His statement regarding the Constitution was an episode of Trumpism that deserved more elaborate and sustained treatment. Even against the steady stream of Trump excesses over the past seven years, a demand to burn the Constitution stood out—especially with Trump’s recent and deeper forays into the realm of authoritarianism. If he is beginning his latest White House chase with a call to abolish the Constitution—while hailing the January 6 rioters and hobnobbing with antisemites and a white nationalist—imagine where might be heading. Armed resistance?
The media have often had a difficult time fully contextualizing and conveying Trump’s extremism. That’s understandable. His brand of demagogic politics undermines deeply held assumptions within the media. The national press long has been guided by the fundamental belief that both sides of the country’s political debate are generally morally equivalent—or, at least, that it’s not up to journalists to judge—and each deserve the same reporting approach. Yet Trump, with his continuing assault on democracy, is different and challenges this model. That is, he breaks it. As he heads further down this perilous (for the nation) path, conventional political coverage will not be sufficient. Like climate change, a pandemic, or a financial crisis, Trump, a would-be, Constitution-defying autocrat, and those enabling and supporting him jeopardize the nation. He and his movement ought to be covered not as yet another subject for the politics section but as a direct danger to American democracy.
David Corn: The Media Still Doesn't Know How to Cover Trump's Extremism
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/12/the-media-still-doesnt-know-how-to-cover-trumps-extremism/12 mins ago
The Media Still Doesn’t Know How to Cover Trump’s Extremism
His call for the “termination” of the US Constitution is the latest example.
David Corn
The day after Donald Trump, a former president and the leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, called for the “termination” of provisions of the US Constitution governing elections and essentially demanded that he be declared the “rightful winner” of the 2020 election, neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post ran a front-page story reporting Trump’s call for ripping up portions of the nation’s founding document. No mention of this even appeared in the Times that day. Trump’s unprecedented and dangerous statement was not deemed a big deal. This raised a question: Have major media players still not figured out how to cover Trump’s extremism?
snip//
The predictable had occurred. Trump made a preposterous remark. Democrats soundly excoriated him, and Republicans mealy-mouthed the matter. The media reported the fuss, and we all move on. But is there another way to cover this? Could news organizations better frame this development as a controversy of profound and lasting significance? A leading contender for the presidency—a job in which the top priority is to “protect and defend the Constitution”—had said screw that and displayed a desire to gain power as an autocrat. Trump reaffirmed that he is a threat to the nation’s constitutional order. (See January 6.) Might that warrant more oh-shit notice?
snip//
His statement regarding the Constitution was an episode of Trumpism that deserved more elaborate and sustained treatment. Even against the steady stream of Trump excesses over the past seven years, a demand to burn the Constitution stood out—especially with Trump’s recent and deeper forays into the realm of authoritarianism. If he is beginning his latest White House chase with a call to abolish the Constitution—while hailing the January 6 rioters and hobnobbing with antisemites and a white nationalist—imagine where might be heading. Armed resistance?
The media have often had a difficult time fully contextualizing and conveying Trump’s extremism. That’s understandable. His brand of demagogic politics undermines deeply held assumptions within the media. The national press long has been guided by the fundamental belief that both sides of the country’s political debate are generally morally equivalent—or, at least, that it’s not up to journalists to judge—and each deserve the same reporting approach. Yet Trump, with his continuing assault on democracy, is different and challenges this model. That is, he breaks it. As he heads further down this perilous (for the nation) path, conventional political coverage will not be sufficient. Like climate change, a pandemic, or a financial crisis, Trump, a would-be, Constitution-defying autocrat, and those enabling and supporting him jeopardize the nation. He and his movement ought to be covered not as yet another subject for the politics section but as a direct danger to American democracy.
December 8, 2022
Posted on Wed, Dec 7th, 2022 by Jason Easley
Chuck Schumer Moves To Isolate MAGA Republicans
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) made it clear during a press conference that he intends to isolate MAGA Republicans in the next Congress.
Schumer said:
One of the ways to defeat the MAGAs in Congress is to isolate them. There are many more non-MAGA members than there are Trump devotees. If Republicans and Democrats can unify on important issues, Trump’s fan club will not have the political power that it needs to do anything.
The strategy is to not give Trump’s MAGA the numbers that they need to be successful. The Senate has shown an ability to pass bipartisan legislation. Partisanship and division are oxygen for MAGA and through cooperation American democracy can be saved.
Chuck Schumer Moves To Isolate MAGA Republicans
https://www.politicususa.com/2022/12/07/chuck-schumer-moves-to-isolate-maga-republicans.htmlPosted on Wed, Dec 7th, 2022 by Jason Easley
Chuck Schumer Moves To Isolate MAGA Republicans
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) made it clear during a press conference that he intends to isolate MAGA Republicans in the next Congress.
Schumer said:
The fact that we got the 51 votes, gives us just a great feeling, enthusiasm, unity, encouragement, in that way. And let me just add, our caucus has been deeply grateful for Vice President Harris’s constant schedule juggling to preside over a 50/50 Senate. She did a great job. We’re appreciative. It’s part of her job. But I think she’s done a lot of other good things. And now she’s going to have a little more time to do those things. Because the need for her to be here will be less.
Next, one of the things I hope to do as leader is, even in this new electoral climate, is reach out to Republicans. There are a good number of Republicans in the Senate and the House, who are not MAGA Republicans, who know that if the Republican Party follows the hard right, and the extreme members in their caucuses, that they’ll continue to lose ground as they’ve lost ground in 2020 and they lost ground in 2022 and in 2018, in the House. And it is my intention to reach out to them and say, how can we work in a bipartisan way? And you say, oh, that’ll never happen. Well look at what happened this summer with 50/50. Of the six major bills we passed, five were bipartisan. And it wasn’t that every Republican went along with us. But most did, enough did.
Next, one of the things I hope to do as leader is, even in this new electoral climate, is reach out to Republicans. There are a good number of Republicans in the Senate and the House, who are not MAGA Republicans, who know that if the Republican Party follows the hard right, and the extreme members in their caucuses, that they’ll continue to lose ground as they’ve lost ground in 2020 and they lost ground in 2022 and in 2018, in the House. And it is my intention to reach out to them and say, how can we work in a bipartisan way? And you say, oh, that’ll never happen. Well look at what happened this summer with 50/50. Of the six major bills we passed, five were bipartisan. And it wasn’t that every Republican went along with us. But most did, enough did.
One of the ways to defeat the MAGAs in Congress is to isolate them. There are many more non-MAGA members than there are Trump devotees. If Republicans and Democrats can unify on important issues, Trump’s fan club will not have the political power that it needs to do anything.
The strategy is to not give Trump’s MAGA the numbers that they need to be successful. The Senate has shown an ability to pass bipartisan legislation. Partisanship and division are oxygen for MAGA and through cooperation American democracy can be saved.
December 7, 2022
No Sleazeballs Left Behind
by Jaime O’Neill | December 7, 2022 - 7:50am
I don't like to think of myself as a cynic, but it's hard to get as old as I am without at least a crust of cynicism about the ways of the world. "Behind every great fortune lies a great crime" is a thought that, once heard, is hard to dispute or unthink. And the more one knows of history, the more difficult it becomes to question such a notion.
I'm writing this just moments after hearing the news that the Trump organization was found guilty of tax fraud on all 17 counts brought against that so obviously crooked outfit. Like so many of the allegations that have been floating around like scum on a very rotten stew, it's difficult to think anyone could be naïve enough to be surprised by this news.
Trump, a liar and a thief? No way, Jose. And, speaking of Jose, what about all that taxpayer money paid to outfits that housed those asylum seekers and refugees from Mexico that Trump and Co. demonized so consistently? If we could follow the money, damn near every fortune in the country got made with selective big cash handouts from the government, from the railroad moguls of the 19th century to the techies of our time. Massive government contracts pour out of the Pentagon, for instance, to build stuff that a) often doesn't work, or b) is priced far beyond what a truly competitive marketplace could ever justify. Free market capitalism; are you fuckin' kiddin' me? Self-made men? Right.
So, was I surprised to learn, officially, that Trump is a crook? No, I wasn't. Were you? But I also had the uneasy feeling that if you shined a light on any of the corporations headed up by CEOs who make tens of millions per year that they would be scuttling like cockroaches when the lights come on, looking for the lawyers who helped make the laws that protect them from culpability for the crime of quasi-legal stealing with both hands.
Are people paid off the books, rewarded for their contributions in ways that are hidden, to the advantage of both payees and payers? Ya think?
more...
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jaime-o-neill/104244/no-sleazeballs-left-behind
No Sleazeballs Left Behind
No Sleazeballs Left Behind
by Jaime O’Neill | December 7, 2022 - 7:50am
I don't like to think of myself as a cynic, but it's hard to get as old as I am without at least a crust of cynicism about the ways of the world. "Behind every great fortune lies a great crime" is a thought that, once heard, is hard to dispute or unthink. And the more one knows of history, the more difficult it becomes to question such a notion.
I'm writing this just moments after hearing the news that the Trump organization was found guilty of tax fraud on all 17 counts brought against that so obviously crooked outfit. Like so many of the allegations that have been floating around like scum on a very rotten stew, it's difficult to think anyone could be naïve enough to be surprised by this news.
Trump, a liar and a thief? No way, Jose. And, speaking of Jose, what about all that taxpayer money paid to outfits that housed those asylum seekers and refugees from Mexico that Trump and Co. demonized so consistently? If we could follow the money, damn near every fortune in the country got made with selective big cash handouts from the government, from the railroad moguls of the 19th century to the techies of our time. Massive government contracts pour out of the Pentagon, for instance, to build stuff that a) often doesn't work, or b) is priced far beyond what a truly competitive marketplace could ever justify. Free market capitalism; are you fuckin' kiddin' me? Self-made men? Right.
So, was I surprised to learn, officially, that Trump is a crook? No, I wasn't. Were you? But I also had the uneasy feeling that if you shined a light on any of the corporations headed up by CEOs who make tens of millions per year that they would be scuttling like cockroaches when the lights come on, looking for the lawyers who helped make the laws that protect them from culpability for the crime of quasi-legal stealing with both hands.
Are people paid off the books, rewarded for their contributions in ways that are hidden, to the advantage of both payees and payers? Ya think?
more...
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jaime-o-neill/104244/no-sleazeballs-left-behind
December 6, 2022
Why the Right Needs Hunter Biden
December 6, 2022 at 11:54 am EST By Taegan Goddard
Why the Right Needs Hunter Biden
https://politicalwire.com/2022/12/06/why-the-right-needs-hunter-biden/Why the Right Needs Hunter Biden
December 6, 2022 at 11:54 am EST By Taegan Goddard
Mona Charen: “They desperately want Joe Biden to be corrupt and for the whole family to be, in Stefanik’s words, ‘a crime family’ because they have provided succor and support to someone who has encouraged political violence since his early rallies in 2015, has stoked hatred of minorities through lies, has used his office for personal gain in the most flagrant fashion, has surrounded himself with criminals and con men, has committed human rights violations against would-be immigrants by separating children from their parents, has pardoned war criminals, has cost the lives of tens of thousands of COVID patients by discounting the virus and peddling quack cures, has revived racism in public discourse, and attempted a violent coup d’etat.”
“They know it. It gnaws at them. That’s why the Hunter Biden story is their heart’s desire. But here’s something else they need to meditate on: Even if everything they’re alleging about Joe Biden were true; even if he did pull strings to help his son and even profited unjustly thereby, it still wouldn’t amount to a fraction of what Trump did.”
“They know it. It gnaws at them. That’s why the Hunter Biden story is their heart’s desire. But here’s something else they need to meditate on: Even if everything they’re alleging about Joe Biden were true; even if he did pull strings to help his son and even profited unjustly thereby, it still wouldn’t amount to a fraction of what Trump did.”
December 6, 2022
Dems should force GOP to vote on resolution affirming the Constitution and condemning Trump
Dartagnan
Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)
Monday December 05, 2022 · 4:18 PM EST
Share this article
It seems almost too obvious, but one way of getting House and Senate Republicans on the record regarding their slavish devotion to Donald Trump is by forcing them into a corner: either they stand publicly with Trump’s statement about throwing out the Constitution to install him as president, or they don’t. As suggested by TalkingPointsMemo reader “JB” and posted with approval by the site’s owner, Josh Marshall, there would seem to be political gold to be mined here.
From “JB’s post, transcribed on TPM:
Putting both the affirmation of the Constitution and a condemnation of Trump’s statements into a single resolution forces the GOP to take a position. If they vote “yes,” they’ll risk being primaried by a Trump candidate who will use that vote to bludgeon them, resulting in their outright defeat, or bleeding their support when they have to run against a Democrat in the 2024 general election. If they vote “no, Democrats can run ads saying they support throwing out the Constitution, right along with their buddy Trump (who by the way, is going to be right next to them on the ballot).
Many of them, perhaps most — spineless cowards that they are — would probably abstain or simply refuse to vote, but that’s OK too. The Democratic ads will simply state that when given the chance they still refused to affirm the Constitution and they still refused to condemn Trump’s diatribe, which seems like a winner from a Democratic perspective. It may not make a big difference to the GOP base, but, as Josh Marshall also points out in this piece — aptly titled “Hang it Around Their Necks”— a majority of voters in 2022 actually seemed to care about democracy and the Constitution:
In 2022, Democratic victories in Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Hampshire, Arizona and Nevada showed that voters rejected Trump’s extremist hand-picked candidates. Hopefully they’ll do the same in Georgia on Tuesday. By continually inserting himself into the political process long after being thrown out of office, Trump — for all the very real danger he represents to democracy — does not seem to realize that when he opens his mouth, or tweets whatever seditious fantasies pop into his head, he provides ammunition for Democrats to use against a GOP still totally trapped in his orbit.
This instance should be no exception, and the time to do it is now.
Dems should force GOP to vote on resolution affirming the Constitution and condemning Trump
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/12/5/2140181/-Dems-should-force-GOP-to-vote-on-resolution-affirming-the-Constitution-and-condemning-TrumpDems should force GOP to vote on resolution affirming the Constitution and condemning Trump
Dartagnan
Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)
Monday December 05, 2022 · 4:18 PM EST
Share this article
It seems almost too obvious, but one way of getting House and Senate Republicans on the record regarding their slavish devotion to Donald Trump is by forcing them into a corner: either they stand publicly with Trump’s statement about throwing out the Constitution to install him as president, or they don’t. As suggested by TalkingPointsMemo reader “JB” and posted with approval by the site’s owner, Josh Marshall, there would seem to be political gold to be mined here.
From “JB’s post, transcribed on TPM:
I wonder if it would be useful to have the House and Senate individually pass resolutions affirming the Constitution and condemning Trump’s outburst. If they vote against it, I could see ads in 2 years about how so-and-so Republican voted against the Constitution and effectively for its “termination.”
Putting both the affirmation of the Constitution and a condemnation of Trump’s statements into a single resolution forces the GOP to take a position. If they vote “yes,” they’ll risk being primaried by a Trump candidate who will use that vote to bludgeon them, resulting in their outright defeat, or bleeding their support when they have to run against a Democrat in the 2024 general election. If they vote “no, Democrats can run ads saying they support throwing out the Constitution, right along with their buddy Trump (who by the way, is going to be right next to them on the ballot).
Many of them, perhaps most — spineless cowards that they are — would probably abstain or simply refuse to vote, but that’s OK too. The Democratic ads will simply state that when given the chance they still refused to affirm the Constitution and they still refused to condemn Trump’s diatribe, which seems like a winner from a Democratic perspective. It may not make a big difference to the GOP base, but, as Josh Marshall also points out in this piece — aptly titled “Hang it Around Their Necks”— a majority of voters in 2022 actually seemed to care about democracy and the Constitution:
Anyone who calls for the overthrow of the federal Constitution is by definition unfit to serve in any office of public trust whatsoever. The fact that such a person is the leader of one party and its probable presidential nominee is a problem not just for the country but for that party. Nothing matters? His supporters don’t care? The 2022 election and frankly the 2020 one too say otherwise.
In 2022, Democratic victories in Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Hampshire, Arizona and Nevada showed that voters rejected Trump’s extremist hand-picked candidates. Hopefully they’ll do the same in Georgia on Tuesday. By continually inserting himself into the political process long after being thrown out of office, Trump — for all the very real danger he represents to democracy — does not seem to realize that when he opens his mouth, or tweets whatever seditious fantasies pop into his head, he provides ammunition for Democrats to use against a GOP still totally trapped in his orbit.
This instance should be no exception, and the time to do it is now.
December 6, 2022
Hitler Would Have Had Ye Sterilized and Gassed
by Harvey Wasserman | December 6, 2022 - 6:38am
— from Reader Supported News
The artist formerly known as Kanye West has told Tucker Carlson he sees “good things” in Adolph Hitler.
Maybe “Ye,” as he’s now called, should know Hitler would have had him sterilized, then gassed.
Indeed, as a man of color, the infamous rapper would have been subject to Nazi race laws that paralleled those imposed on Jews.
But Hitler reserved additional special treatment for those of African descent. By 1937, if he’d lived in his hero’s Germany, Ye was sure to have been forcibly neutered.
To prevent what der Fuhrer called “race polluting,” Nazis rounded up non-whites—-including children as young as 11—-and terminated their ability to reproduce. The procedure was done without anesthetics. Its victims were given a certificate and warned never to have sexual relations with any white German.
snip//
So as he proclaims his love for Hitler and hatred for Jews to the likes of Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump, Ye might consider who would have sterilized him and his family in Nazi Germany…and who would have died next to them in the shower rooms at Auschwitz.
Hitler Would Have Had Ye Sterilized and Gassed
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/harvey-wasserman/104220/hitler-would-have-had-ye-sterilized-and-gassedHitler Would Have Had Ye Sterilized and Gassed
by Harvey Wasserman | December 6, 2022 - 6:38am
— from Reader Supported News
The artist formerly known as Kanye West has told Tucker Carlson he sees “good things” in Adolph Hitler.
Maybe “Ye,” as he’s now called, should know Hitler would have had him sterilized, then gassed.
Indeed, as a man of color, the infamous rapper would have been subject to Nazi race laws that paralleled those imposed on Jews.
But Hitler reserved additional special treatment for those of African descent. By 1937, if he’d lived in his hero’s Germany, Ye was sure to have been forcibly neutered.
To prevent what der Fuhrer called “race polluting,” Nazis rounded up non-whites—-including children as young as 11—-and terminated their ability to reproduce. The procedure was done without anesthetics. Its victims were given a certificate and warned never to have sexual relations with any white German.
snip//
So as he proclaims his love for Hitler and hatred for Jews to the likes of Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump, Ye might consider who would have sterilized him and his family in Nazi Germany…and who would have died next to them in the shower rooms at Auschwitz.
December 6, 2022
Posted on Mon, Dec 5th, 2022 by Jason Easley
Republicans Are Grim As Herschel Walker Thinks He’s Running For The House
The Georgia Senate runoff is expected to be close, but Sen. Raphael Warnock (D) has momentum, and Herschel Walker thinks that he is running for the House.
Politico reported:
In a brief interview with POLITICO on Saturday, Walker seemed to mistake which chamber of Congress he was running for and also appeared to think the outcome of his race would determine control of the Senate.
The polarization in politics is so extreme right now that a person like Herschel Walker, who doesn’t appear to know what he is running for, will probably get 45%-48% of the vote in the runoff.
Walker thinks that he is running for the House, and he believes that he will determine control of the House, so this is the current state of play for Republicans in the Georgia Senate runoff. The GOP is stuck with a candidate who is glued at the hip to the unpopular Trump, who seems unfit to hold office, and has an opponent running laps around him on the campaign trail.
Republicans are in a glum mood because all signs point to Raphael Warnock being reelected on Tuesday.
Republicans Are Grim As Herschel Walker Thinks He's Running For The House
https://www.politicususa.com/2022/12/05/herschel-walker-house.htmlPosted on Mon, Dec 5th, 2022 by Jason Easley
Republicans Are Grim As Herschel Walker Thinks He’s Running For The House
The Georgia Senate runoff is expected to be close, but Sen. Raphael Warnock (D) has momentum, and Herschel Walker thinks that he is running for the House.
Politico reported:
In a brief interview with POLITICO on Saturday, Walker seemed to mistake which chamber of Congress he was running for and also appeared to think the outcome of his race would determine control of the Senate.
“They’re not [less motivated] because they know right now that the House will be even so they don’t want to understand what is happening right now,” he said of voters. “You get the House, you get the committees. You get all the committees even, they just stall things within there. So if we keep a check on Joe Biden, we just going to keep a check on him.”
The polarization in politics is so extreme right now that a person like Herschel Walker, who doesn’t appear to know what he is running for, will probably get 45%-48% of the vote in the runoff.
Walker thinks that he is running for the House, and he believes that he will determine control of the House, so this is the current state of play for Republicans in the Georgia Senate runoff. The GOP is stuck with a candidate who is glued at the hip to the unpopular Trump, who seems unfit to hold office, and has an opponent running laps around him on the campaign trail.
Republicans are in a glum mood because all signs point to Raphael Warnock being reelected on Tuesday.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: NY
Home country: US
Current location: Florida
Member since: Mon Sep 6, 2004, 09:54 PM
Number of posts: 171,056
