HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » dajoki » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Home country: USA
Current location: PA
Member since: Wed May 11, 2005, 09:48 PM
Number of posts: 10,659

About Me

I love spending time with my grandchildren and gardening.

Journal Archives

Pissed about Super Tuesday? Suck it up: Beating Trump means supporting the Democratic nominee

Pissed about Super Tuesday? Suck it up: Beating Trump means supporting the Democratic nominee


In a new essay for the New Republic, political scientist and pollster Rachel Bitecofer describes this moment in political history:

As the electorate is currently constituted, there are more potential Democratic voters out there than there are Republican, and not just in California. There are more in the Midwest and in the Sun Belt. There are so many more in Virginia and Colorado that both states have moved off the swing state map.

The 2020 election will be a battle of the bases, with nothing less than the country's survival as a functional democracy on the ballot. Partisanship is a hell of a drug — especially when it's cut with a heavy dose of existential fear.

There are eight months to Election Day. Much can and will happen that is outside of the ability of the pundits, the pollsters and the commentariat to predict. But one thing is certain. There will be Democratic and independent voters who are upset that their preferred candidate is not the party's presidential nominee. Some of these voters may choose to stay home, to vote for a meaningless third-party candidate or even to support Donald Trump in some ill-conceived protest against the system.

Such impulses are dangerous. Instead, these angry and disaffected Democrats and independents must vote with their heads and not their hearts, must embrace a new maturity, and must abandon childish purity tests that are best suited for halcyon days and a time of "normalcy" than for the nightmarish crisis of the Age of Trump.

Not to support the Democratic nominee — whoever that may be — is to aid Donald Trump and his authoritarian movement in their quest for a second term.

Moreover, not to vote against Donald Trump is to betray American democracy and the very values that so many disaffected progressives, Democrats and independents claim to embrace. Is the Democratic Party perfect, or even fully functional? Of course not. But to sabotage it now is to embrace darkness.

institutional ability of the press to fully convey the abnormality of this presidency is in doubt

Trump’s new attack on Biden exposes his own unfitness


In this election, the institutional ability of the press to fully convey the abnormality of this presidency is in doubt. As Brian Beutler details, we’re already seeing a rerun of 2016, which was beset with the press corps’ failure to clearly demarcate Trump’s history of corruption and racism from the lesser sins of Hillary Clinton.

Trump’s allies are counting on these failures to resurface. GOP senators are intensifying sham investigations into Biden and his son, in the obvious expectation that if he’s the nominee, whatever they purport to find will be treated as legitimate news, casting a pall of corruption over him.


Such duplicity can't survive appeal


. "Spare me. That's what I mean. I don't need phony off-the-record after-the-fact friends."

Dem lawmaker drops hammer on GOPers ‘covering their butts’ by rushing to defend Vindman after Trump fired him

Saying “spare me,” Rep. Sean Maloney (D-NY) trashed the anonymous Republican lawmakers who contacted the New York Times to claim they tried to stop Donald Trump from firing EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman to make it look like they cared.

Speaking with MSNBC host Kendis Gibson, the New York lawmaker expressed disgust with what he called their “cowardice,” while reacting to a New York Times report noting the alleged concerns of Republicans over the president’s actions.

“I think what you’re seeing there is pretty obvious,” Maloney stated. “You’re seeing vulnerable Republicans, after the fact, try to cover their butts by leaking to the New York Times that they want us all to know they were deeply troubled by this. And even though they took a vote that could have absolutely guaranteed that people like Lt. Col. Vindman would be hurt, would be made to pay the price for their fecklessness, for their cowardice, they want us to know they were troubled by it.”

“They’re going to continue to support this president, but they want the New York Times to know they secretly know it’s wrong,” he continued. “Spare me. That’s what I mean. I don’t need phony off-the-record after-the-fact friends.”

The Billion-Dollar Disinformation Campaign to Reelect the President*

The Billion-Dollar Disinformation Campaign to Reelect the President
How new technologies and techniques pioneered by dictators will shape the 2020 election

One day last fall, I sat down to create a new Facebook account. I picked a forgettable name, snapped a profile pic with my face obscured, and clicked “Like” on the official pages of Donald Trump and his reelection campaign. Facebook’s algorithm prodded me to follow Ann Coulter, Fox Business, and a variety of fan pages with names like “In Trump We Trust.” I complied. I also gave my cellphone number to the Trump campaign, and joined a handful of private Facebook groups for MAGA diehards, one of which required an application that seemed designed to screen out interlopers.

The president’s reelection campaign was then in the midst of a multimillion-dollar ad blitz aimed at shaping Americans’ understanding of the recently launched impeachment proceedings. Thousands of micro-targeted ads had flooded the internet, portraying Trump as a heroic reformer cracking down on foreign corruption while Democrats plotted a coup. That this narrative bore little resemblance to reality seemed only to accelerate its spread. Right-wing websites amplified every claim. Pro-Trump forums teemed with conspiracy theories. An alternate information ecosystem was taking shape around the biggest news story in the country, and I wanted to see it from the inside.

The story that unfurled in my Facebook feed over the next several weeks was, at times, disorienting. There were days when I would watch, live on TV, an impeachment hearing filled with damning testimony about the president’s conduct, only to look at my phone later and find a slickly edited video—served up by the Trump campaign—that used out-of-context clips to recast the same testimony as an exoneration. Wait, I caught myself wondering more than once, is that what happened today?

As I swiped at my phone, a stream of pro-Trump propaganda filled the screen: “That’s right, the whistleblower’s own lawyer said, ‘The coup has started …’ ” Swipe. “Democrats are doing Putin’s bidding …” Swipe. “The only message these radical socialists and extremists will understand is a crushing …” Swipe. “Only one man can stop this chaos …” Swipe, swipe, swipe.


The Trump campaign is planning to spend more than $1 billion, and it will be aided by a vast coalition of partisan media, outside political groups, and enterprising freelance operatives. These pro-Trump forces are poised to wage what could be the most extensive disinformation campaign in U.S. history. Whether or not it succeeds in reelecting the president, the wreckage it leaves behind could be irreparable.


John Roberts comes face to face with the mess he made

John Roberts comes face to face with the mess he made

There is justice in John Roberts being forced to preside silently over the impeachment trial of President Trump, hour after hour, day after tedious day.


Roberts’s captivity is entirely fitting: He is forced to witness, with his own eyes, the mess he and his colleagues on the Supreme Court have made of the U.S. political system. As representatives of all three branches of government attend this unhappy family reunion, the living consequences of the Roberts Court’s decisions, and their corrosive effect on democracy, are plain to see.

Ten years to the day before Trump’s impeachment trial began, the Supreme Court released its Citizens United decision, plunging the country into the era of super PACs and unlimited, unregulated, secret campaign money from billionaires and foreign interests. Citizens United, and the resulting rise of the super PAC, led directly to this impeachment. The two Rudy Giuliani associates engaged in key abuses — the ouster of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, the attempts to force Ukraine’s president to announce investigations into Trump’s political opponents — gained access to Trump by funneling money from a Ukrainian oligarch to the president’s super PAC.

The Roberts Court’s decisions led to this moment in indirect ways, as well. The court’s 2013 ruling in Shelby County gutted the Voting Rights Act and spurred a new wave of voter suppression. The decision in 2014′s McCutcheon further surrendered campaign finance to the wealthiest. The 2018 Janus decision hobbled the ability of labor unions to counter wealthy donors, while the 2019 Rucho ruling blessed partisan gerrymandering, expanding anti-democratic tendencies.


Now, we are in a crisis of democratic legitimacy: A president who has plainly abused his office and broken the law, a legislature too paralyzed to do anything about it — and a chief justice coming face to face with the system he broke.

Susan Collins Takes Hours to Decide on Lunch Before Ordering Exactly What Mitch McConnell Is Having

Susan Collins Takes Hours to Decide on Lunch Before Ordering Exactly What Mitch McConnell Is Having

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—On the first day of the impeachment trial in the United States Senate, Senator Susan Collins, a Republican of Maine, spent hours trying to decide what she would have for lunch before ultimately ordering exactly what Senator Mitch McConnell was having.

Clutching the Senate takeout menu in her hands, Collins told reporters mid-morning that the decision of what to have for lunch was a matter of serious consideration and that she wanted to review all of the available options before selecting one.

“I’m deeply troubled and concerned about getting this order right,” Collins said. “There are many valid choices on this menu and I don’t want to give any of them short shrift.”

Around 11 A.M., rumors swirled that Collins was leaning toward ordering a quinoa salad, a choice that would have set her apart from the rest of her Republican colleagues in the upper chamber.

By noon, however, Collins emerged from her office to tell reporters that she had ordered the exact same thing that the Senate Majority Leader had chosen, a roast beef sandwich on a roll.

“At the end of the day, there was just not enough evidence that ordering anything else would have been better,” she said.
According to sources, Collins spent the lunch hour eating her sandwich alone at her desk and trying to determine why everyone hates her.

When was the last time a Republican won a presidential election without the help of dirty tricks

Ronald Reagan’s “October Surprise” Plot Was Real After All

A batch of quietly released documents confirms what many have long suspected: Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign worked behind the scenes to delay the release of US hostages in Iran, for the benefit of Reagan’s election campaign. It raises the question: When was the last time a Republican won a presidential election without the help of dirty tricks?


For those counting, that’s now at least four of the last six Republican presidents who have won elections with the assistance of some sort of pre-election skulduggery, including Richard Nixon’s torpedoing of peace in Vietnam, the George W. Bush campaign shenanigans in Florida and the later use of the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” and Donald Trump’s boost from Russia’s hacking of Democratic Party emails (even if that wasn’t coordinated) — not to mention the use of voter suppression that unites them all. And that’s not counting George H. W. Bush getting help from John Major’s government in the UK to beat Bill Clinton in 1992.




Madam Speaker, I Rise in Support of Withholding the Articles

Madam Speaker, I Rise in Support of Withholding the Articles

“Make no mistake, we are not impeaching this president. He is impeaching himself. If you are the president, and you obstruct justice, try to bribe a foreign leader, and threaten national security, you’re going to get impeached. End of story.”
— Susan Davis, D-Calif., Impeachment Debate, House of Representatives, Wednesday, December 18, 2019.

The decision, Madam Speaker, to withhold the Articles of Impeachment is clearly justified by Abuse of Power. However, it is not the president’s abuse of power as articulated in the Articles of Impeachment, but rather Senator Mitch McConnell’s abuse of his power as

Senate Majority Leader that necessitates the course you have rightly undertaken.

Given Leader McConnell’s stark and clear declaration of intent to undermine the objectivity the Constitution envisions in an impeachment trial, you are compelled to safeguard the process by all means at your disposal.

Moreover, you are further empowered by the mandate of public opinion on the matter. By an overwhelming margin, the American people want precisely what you are negotiating for – open, public testimony from administration officials with direct, firsthand knowledge of the events for which the president has been impeached. They are surely entitled to have it.

In addition, unfolding events accelerate the urgency. New evidence of the president’s involvement in the Ukrainian affair now surfaces on an almost daily basis. White House emails newly obtained by Kate Brannen at Just Security illustrate a clear intent on the part of the president personally to withhold Congressionally approved aid from Ukraine as the administration demanded an investigation into former vice president Joseph R. Biden.


Bolton has let it be known that he will testify...But what gives him the right to dictate terms?

Why Aren’t All the President’s Men Testifying?
Their contempt for Congress should be met with a legal and political fusillade.

Why aren’t all the president’s men testifying?

Some of the president’s closest aides, official and unofficial, past and present — Robert Blair, Michael Duffey, Rudy Giuliani, Don McGahn, Mick Mulvaney and Mike Pompeo — invoke a presidential order to refuse to give evidence about delays in Ukraine aid. But government officials like Gordon Sondland, William Taylor, Alexander Vindman and Marie Yovanovitch all ignored such orders and gave valuable testimony. After weeks of tweeting, giving interviews and writing his memoirs, John Bolton has let it be known that he will testify before the Senate, if he is subpoenaed by the Senate. But what gives him the right to dictate terms?

Mr. Bolton’s statement Monday claims that he is trying to “resolve the serious competing issues” between his obligations as a citizen and a former national security official. In fact, those obligations point in the same direction. Like jury duty or paying taxes, testifying under oath about facts we know is not optional; it is a fundamental obligation of citizenship. As a government official, Mr. Bolton held high office under an oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” Testifying at a Senate impeachment trial fulfills that constitutional oath.

Anyone who served in high public office knows that testifying before Congress about matters you worked on in government is part of your solemn public duty. If legislators’ questions impinge upon legitimate concerns about executive or national security privilege, you still must appear, declining to answer only those questions that call for information legally protected from public disclosure.

It does not matter that these witnesses have successfully withheld their testimony until now. The House’s impeachment vote should overrule any ethical or legal objection these witnesses now have to testifying before the Senate. How can senators vote on Mr. Trump’s removal without the testimony of any of his closest advisers? And if Mr. Bolton ends up testifying, don’t the Senate and the public need the others’ testimony to flesh out the full story?

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »