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

Algernon Moncrieff

Algernon Moncrieff's Journal
Algernon Moncrieff's Journal
October 16, 2019

As we wind this debate down....

1) Who do you think did themselves the most good tonight and why?

2) Who could have done better/did badly?

3) How did you feel about the operation of the debate/format/Anderson Cooper et. al.?

October 16, 2019

Question about the Yang (and, apparently, Gabbard) UBI proposal.

Would the $1,000 per month payment be in addition to programs such as SNAP and Section 8, or in lieu of such programs?

September 26, 2019

Question for DU Legal Minds: What law did Trump break?

Put another way: It's obviously unseemly to pressure a foreign leader into doing political dirty work. But what actual law/statute was broken?

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)


As much as I see this as undermining our Constitution, a) Ukraine is not an enemy (nor, technically, is Russia at this time) and I think it'd be difficult to assert he's levied war, in the traditional sense. So I don't see treason. Corruption? Hell Yes! But not treason.

Is extorting a foreign leader while President a crime? Answer: I have no idea.

Is this, in a sense, an Emoluments Clause violation -- an attempt at personal enrichment/benefit on the part of the President?

Will the House ultimately have a stronger case for pressing Obstruction of Justice, as described in the Muller Report?
September 18, 2019

Fool America again in the Middle East - then shame on us!

Amazing coincidence that "Iran" attacks a huge Saudi Arabian oil facility at a time when US gas prices were, in some places, were heading south of $2.20 a gallon....and it's an amazing coincidence that a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Iranian hawk is standing for a tough reelection fight in Israel when "Iran" attaks a huge Saudi Arabian oil facility.... and given that Trump supporters skew older and whiter, it's an amazing coincidence that the nation that took our embassy workers as hostages attacks our good friends in Saudi Arabia (from which the 9-11 attackers and masterminds came) when Trump is in a tough reelection battle.

Remember the Gulf of Tonkin. Remember the Iraqi WMDs.

1) Tell your Senators and Congressman that no US loss of lives will be tolerated in defense of "Mister Bone Saw."

2) Spread the word that any money that we would spend on more Middle Eastern war would be better invested in tax breaks for electric cars, hybrid cars, wind projects, and solar projects.

No fight between a religious dictatorship and an absolute monarchy should ever be the American taxpayer's problem.

September 11, 2019

Kita Alexander

My favorite Australian pop star that no one has heard of...







August 11, 2019

NY Mag: Surging in Polls, Elizabeth Warren Now Has a Path to the Nomination

(This is also posted in the Warren group, of which I am not currently a member. Note also this is based on information before this weekend's appearances in Iowa)

Recent polls have clearly indicated that Warren is going places. The RealClearPolitics national polling averages show her as basically tied with Bernie Sanders for second place with Joe Biden’s lead narrowing. The two most recent national polls (from Quinnipiac and Economist–You Gov) place her seven and five points, respectively, ahead of Sanders. Just as important, she’s gaining strength in the early states. A new Monmouth poll from Iowa places her ten points ahead of Bernie, and just nine points behind Biden, in a state where everyone concedes she has the best organization. In New Hampshire polls, where Biden’s early lead was less formidable, she’s nipping at Sanders’s heels. Warren is in a similar position in Nevada (which holds its caucuses 11 days after the New Hampshire primary), where Politico reported yesterday that she has already built a “monster” of an organization.

Warren is also clearly making gains in her implicit rivalry with her friend and ally Bernie Sanders for the affections of self-consciously progressive voters, even as she maintains some potential as a party-unifying figure that Bernie may lack thanks to leftover bad memories of his 2016 campaign. In that recent national Quinnipiac survey, she trounced Sanders among “very liberal” voters and actually led him among those under the age of 35.

Whether or not you think Sanders is losing strength (there’s evidence pointing in both directions on that proposition), it is clear that Warren is benefiting from the erosion in Kamala Harris’s support, which probably reflects both the dissipation of the buzz she commanded after the first round of debates and her widely panned performance in the second. Harris’s national polling average has dropped from 15 to 8 percent in the last month. And perhaps just as important, she’s showing little or no progress in taking away Joe Biden’s overpowering position among African-American voters, central to the Obama Redux strategy she is relying on. Quinnipiac gives her just one percent of the black vote nationally. A somewhat older Monmouth survey of South Carolina showed Harris with 12 percent of African-American support in what for her is a key state, where a majority of Democratic primary voters are black — but Joe Biden had 51 percent.

Put all that together with the inability of any candidates outside the Big Four of Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Harris to gain any momentum at all, and for the first time you can clearly see a plausible path to the nomination for Warren.


LINK
August 10, 2019

So I'm going to the Iowa State Fair tomorrow.

Saturday, Aug. 10

9 a.m.: Washington Gov. Jay Inslee
10:30 a.m.: Sen. Kamala Harris
11:15 a.m.: Rep. Tim Ryan
12:45 p.m.: Sen. Amy Klobuchar
1:30 p.m.: Former Rep. Joe Sestak
2:15 p.m.: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
3 p.m.: Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper
3:45 p.m.: Sen. Elizabeth Warren
4:30 p.m.: Sen. Cory Booker


...and (of course) 69 food items on a stick, as well as the legendary Butter Cow.

Should be fun!

August 5, 2019

I've been out since May. Did I miss anything?

Any big retirements from DU? Skinner still running the joint?

April 25, 2019

Is Biden the last big entry into the Democratic primaries?

At this point, is there anyone else out there likely to run?

March 28, 2019

Brexit: No majority for any options after MPs' votes

Source: BBC

How MPs voted
Confirmatory referendum - For: 268 Against: 295
Customs union - For: 264 Against: 272
Labour's Brexit plan - For: 237 Against: 307
Common Market 2.0 - For: 188 Against: 283
Revoking Article to avoid no deal - For: 184 Against: 293
No-deal exit on 12 April - For: 160 Against: 400
Malthouse Plan B - For: 139 Against: 422
EFTA and EEA membership - For: 65 Against: 377
The proposal which came closest to commanding majority support was a cross-party plan - tabled by former Conservative chancellor Ken Clarke - for the whole of the UK to join a new customs union with the EU to ensure tariff-free trade after the UK's exit.

Its supporters included five Conservative ministers: Mark Field, Stephen Hammond, Margot James, Anne Milton and Rory Stewart.

All Conservative MPs - excluding cabinet ministers - were given a free vote, meaning they were not ordered to vote in a certain way.

Eight Conservatives voted for a referendum to endorse the deal, the proposal which secured the most affirmative votes. Labour controversially whipped its MPs to back the proposal but 10 shadow ministers abstained and Melanie Onn quit her job to vote against.

Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47728333



Hard Brexit is a domino that could unleash very unintended economic consequences.

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Apr 20, 2014, 12:49 AM
Number of posts: 5,790
Latest Discussions»Algernon Moncrieff's Journal