Tom Bossert, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, is giving a great press conference. It is incredibly refreshing to hear someone at an administration podium who isn't a babbling moron, a serial liar, or an embarrassing shill of banana-republic proportions.
Note to republicans and the White House: THIS is what effective governance sounds like and how it behaves. Actual competence matters more than blind ideological purity.
Don't be so quick to give this guy credit. I've seen on various networks defending Trump's pardon of Joe Arpaio. His talking points included "Arpaio was pardoned due to his age and years of service to the community". He wouldn't address the question how does ignoring a Federal Court order to stop his profiling practices count as years of community service?
Of course he also threw a 'whatabout' argument out there.
However the worst argument he made, which has been made by several Trump spokesmen, is that Arpaio prosecution was political motivated and the prosecutors and judges were all Obama political appointees. Of course this is a lie.
Federal investigations into Arpaio’s policing practices date to 2008, under the George W. Bush administration.
That investigation, into potential civil rights violations, continued under Obama administration Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who prioritized enforcement of civil rights laws. In 2011, the Justice Department concluded that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office engaged in systemic racial profiling of Latinos. The Department of Homeland Security then removed the immigration-enforcement authority for Arpaio’s agency.
The conviction that Trump pardoned stems from a 2007 racial profiling case, Melendres v. Arpaio, that ran parallel for some time to the civil rights probe. Here’s a timeline of that case, and Arpaio’s campaigns in 2012 and 2016.
2007: Melendres dates to a traffic stop in 2007, and grew into a class-action lawsuit by Hispanic plaintiffs who alleged that sheriff’s deputies discriminated against Latinos in traffic stops.
2011: U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow ordered the agency to stop detaining people solely because they were suspected of being undocumented, and ordered sweeping changes to the office’s policies.
Snow was appointed by Bush and is known as a “straight-shooter,” ideologically a “very conservative Republican” who “quoted Scalia favorably.”
2013: Snow found that the sheriff’s office engaged in systemic racial profiling of Latinos in its anti-illegal-immigration efforts. But Arpaio and his deputies resisted Snow’s 2011 order, and Arpaio acknowledged as much in interviews with the media. For example, in April 2012, Arpaio told “PBS NewsHour”: “I’m still going to do what I’m doing. I’m still going to arrest illegal aliens coming into this country.”
October 2016: The DOJ’s Public Integrity Section, which investigates corruption charges against public officials, announced that it would charge Arpaio with criminal contempt of court. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton took up the case. Bolton was so well regarded by both parties for her fairness that then-Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), one of the country’s most conservative senators, recommended her for nomination by President Bill Clinton.
Nothing like having the sitting President and his minions claiming the whole judicial system is politically biased. How's that good for the Country? All it does is provide fodder for the alt-right and insane Trump supporters.
Nothing like having the sitting President and his minions claiming the whole judicial system is politically biased. How's that good for the Country? All it does is provide fodder for the alt-right and insane Trump supporters.
Sure he said those things but he said them politely which is all Republicans really want. They don't disagree with what Trump says, they only disagree with how he says it.
I don't know how I missed the original 2013 story - although I was working in Azerbaijan at the time - but I recently saw CNN's Chris Cuomo discuss the Arpaio case with Republican Representative Steve King of Iowa and heard about his case for profiling Latinos with 'Cantaloupe Calves' back in 2013. He continued to defend that position in the recent CNN discussion. Go to the 12:05 mark to watch that #### show. Watch for his 1 out of 100 claim.
King, a Republican from Iowa, is one of the most prominent opponents of immigration in the House, and he always expresses this position with wonderfully colorful language. In a recent interview with the conservative site Newsmax, King said that sure, some kids who would be able to stay in America under the DREAM Act are upstanding citizens brought into the country by their parents — but just not enough to make the law worth it. "Some of them are valedictorians, and their parents brought them in," King said. "For everyone who's a valedictorian, there's another 100 out there that weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert."
First of all, Steve King is an ignorant moron. Seriously, he is a complete moron who doesn't know what he is talking about on any issue. He is proof that name recognition can get someone elected, because he gets into office on the back of his name recognition and not his policy positions. The guy is Louie Gohmert / Blake Ferenthold level of stupid.
First of all, Steve King is an ignorant moron. Seriously, he is a complete moron who doesn't know what he is talking about on any issue. He is proof that name recognition can get someone elected, because he gets into office on the back of his name recognition and not his policy positions. The guy is Louie Gohmert / Blake Ferenthold level of stupid.
I don't think anyone is disputing that and I certainly didn't suggest otherwise.
Given how many people are clamoring lately about "protecting our heritage" with regards to the Civil War, you think everyone would be adamant about getting a Civil War/civil rights hero on the $20 bill, right?
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Thursday would not commit to carrying out the Obama administration's plan to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill, saying he had not made a decision about the matter.
Mnuchin said the decision would be based on how to design the currency in a way that prevents counterfeiting, rather than whose portrait was on the bill.
"Ultimately we will be looking at this issue," Mnuchin said in a CNBC interview. "It's not something I'm focused on at the moment."
Mnuchin added that "the issues of why we change it will be primarily related to what we need to do for security purposes."
Funny how we demand keeping statues of traitors because history and yet it's an issue to put someone like Harriet freaking Tubman on our currency.
I don't think anyone is disputing that and I certainly didn't suggest otherwise.
Wasn't suggesting that. Just reminding people that there are some very ignorant people in Congress. And when I say ignorant, I mean so devoid of basic knowledge that it leads to the height of incompetence that it is unlikely they could find employment anywhere else. Steve King and company meet this description in spades.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Regarding the article, perhaps I'm reading between the lines too much but when 25% is described as the possible floor and 37% can easily be fought to a draw then to me it doesn't feel like Trump is in trouble yet at 35%. I mean he won the election at barely 40%. Do you think I'm reading that wrong?
Thanks, I see where you got that from but I do think you're misreading it. He's not saying that it would be easy for Trump to get it to 50%, he's saying that it would be easy for the numbers to move that much in either direction, but by forces that we don't yet know and so can't yet tell which way it's going to move. A war with NK might cause a rallying around the flag effect that buoys his numbers. An impeachment trial might deflate the numbers a similar amount. Probably there will be something that moves the numbers a bunch in one way or another, but also probably it is out of his control.
It's like in basketball (using as an example because it's a very swingy sport), you could say that the margin of a lead could easily change 12 points in the fourth quarter; but a team that starts the final quarter down 12 isn't in an easy position by any stretch of the imagination. The vast majority of scenarios still has it losing; in fact 50% of scenarios still have it losing by 12 points or more.
Thanks, I see where you got that from but I do think you're misreading it. He's not saying that it would be easy for Trump to get it to 50%, he's saying that it would be easy for the numbers to move that much in either direction, but by forces that we don't yet know and so can't yet tell which way it's going to move. A war with NK might cause a rallying around the flag effect that buoys his numbers. An impeachment trial might deflate the numbers a similar amount. Probably there will be something that moves the numbers a bunch in one way or another, but also probably it is out of his control.
It's like in basketball (using as an example because it's a very swingy sport), you could say that the margin of a lead could easily change 12 points in the fourth quarter; but a team that starts the final quarter down 12 isn't in an easy position by any stretch of the imagination. The vast majority of scenarios still has it losing; in fact 50% of scenarios still have it losing by 12 points or more.
Trump doesn't need 50% i think that is his point. At 37% he's still in the game fighting to a draw. Yes many factors can change from now til 2018.
OR if the youth of America show up to vote the Democrats win by a mile. The area by far the most liberal or inclusive group.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Trump doesn't need 50% i think that is his point. At 37% he's still in the game fighting to a draw. Yes many factors can change from now til 2018.
OR if the youth of America show up to vote the Democrats win by a mile. The area by far the most liberal or inclusive group.
See, when you say "at 37% he's still in the game" that suggests to me that you are confusing the effect of Trump at the mid-terms, and the likelihood of Trump being re-elected in 2020. They are not the same thing, simply because Trump won't be on the ballot in 2018.
Some things to keep in mind:
- historically, sitting presidents lose seats at mid-terms. If all things were equal, you would expect the GOP to lose some congressional seats and at least one of the two vulnerable Senators.
- at 37%, all things are not equal. At 25% Trump is a millstone. That is wave territory to the extent that he matters at all.
- we don't know if Trump matters in 2018. Maybe voters see him and the GOP as distinct. If so, maybe none of this makes any difference. We will see.
- (this is the important one): if he goes into re-election with approval ratings lower than his "strongly disapprove" numbers (which is currently the case), then he is not "fighting to a draw." He is looking at a humiliating defeat.
Here is the MOST important point: he is not at 37% anyway. Gallup's latest numbers have him at 34%, and he is trending downward. He's in trouble. This notion that there can be a winning coalition consisting of only 34% of likely or registered voters is, I'm sorry, a fantasy.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
See, when you say "at 37% he's still in the game" that suggests to me that you are confusing the effect of Trump at the mid-terms, and the likelihood of Trump being re-elected in 2020. They are not the same thing, simply because Trump won't be on the ballot in 2018.
Some things to keep in mind:
- historically, sitting presidents lose seats at mid-terms. If all things were equal, you would expect the GOP to lose some congressional seats and at least one of the two vulnerable Senators.
- at 37%, all things are not equal. At 25% Trump is a millstone. That is wave territory to the extent that he matters at all.
- we don't know if Trump matters in 2018. Maybe voters see him and the GOP as distinct. If so, maybe none of this makes any difference. We will see.
- (this is the important one): if he goes into re-election with approval ratings lower than his "strongly disapprove" numbers (which is currently the case), then he is not "fighting to a draw." He is looking at a humiliating defeat.
Here is the MOST important point: he is not at 37% anyway. Gallup's latest numbers have him at 34%, and he is trending downward. He's in trouble. This notion that there can be a winning coalition consisting of only 34% of likely or registered voters is, I'm sorry, a fantasy.
All good points. The part I bolded is the key part. Are Trump and GOP different when the voter is standing in the booth? We'll see. This is how the House will be won or lost.
Regarding the Senate the math just doesn't work for the Democrats.
Republicans who could flip: Heller, Flake
Democrats who could flip: McCaskill, Donnelly, Manchin, Heitkamp, Tester and maybe more.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
All good points. The part I bolded is the key part. Are Trump and GOP different when the voter is standing in the booth? We'll see. This is how the House will be won or lost.
Regarding the Senate the math just doesn't work for the Democrats.
Republicans who could flip: Heller, Flake
Democrats who could flip: McCaskill, Donnelly, Manchin, Heitkamp, Tester and maybe more.
Senate will stay the same, but there aren't enough Republicans in play to flip it. If Trump's numbers don't improve, I would predict a wave election in the House though.
Senate will stay the same, but there aren't enough Republicans in play to flip it. If Trump's numbers don't improve, I would predict a wave election in the House though.
And gerrymandering can be a double-edged sword, because in attempting to maximize their reps, in many cases the Republicans have divided states in such a way that they have a thin but reliable edge in many districts, and lose one or two in a landslide. This also means that if they lose that edge, then things change in a hurry. A five point swing in one region can swing a whole bunch of districts from red to blue.
And gerrymandering can be a double-edged sword, because in attempting to maximize their reps, in many cases the Republicans have divided states in such a way that they have a thin but reliable edge in many districts, and lose one or two in a landslide. This also means that if they lose that edge, then things change in a hurry. A five point swing in one region can swing a whole bunch of districts from red to blue.
No, gerrymandering is not a double edged sword. Gerrymander guarantees competitiveness to victory in districts, more often victory. Gerrymandering is supposedly setup to make districts a guaranteed victory, and only the most extreme swings will setup a possible competive district.
Interesting that Trump broke the rules in his Missouri speech and there's not a peep about it anywhere. You can't spend taxpayer money to campaign.
Trump saying to vote against Sen. Claire McCaskill and his other comments made his speech a campaign speech, so Trump's campaign should be paying for all the costs associated with the whole trip.
People howled over Obama flying on Air Force One to campaign for Clinton (which the campaign paid for), but not a peep about this, from anywhere. That's how far it's gone, when campaigning with taxpayers dollars isn't even worth a mention.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Interesting that Trump broke the rules in his Missouri speech and there's not a peep about it anywhere. You can't spend taxpayer money to campaign.
Trump saying to vote against Sen. Claire McCaskill and his other comments made his speech a campaign speech, so Trump's campaign should be paying for all the costs associated with the whole trip.
People howled over Obama flying on Air Force One to campaign for Clinton (which the campaign paid for), but not a peep about this, from anywhere. That's how far it's gone, when campaigning with taxpayers dollars isn't even worth a mention.
I've seen coverage on CNN and MSNBC raising the same issue but, yeah, it's pretty limited.
No, gerrymandering is not a double edged sword. Gerrymander guarantees competitiveness to victory in districts, more often victory. Gerrymandering is supposedly setup to make districts a guaranteed victory, and only the most extreme swings will setup a possible competive district.
No, it's generally the opposite of that. Gerrymandering is designed to maximize your side's vote efficiency and minimize your opponent's vote efficiency.
This NC diagram provides a decent visualization of this: notice how of the many Republican seats, the victory margins are relatively small compared to the Democrat seats. Republicans allow the Dems to have landslide victories in three districts, while giving themselves comparatively narrow wins in 10. But all but a couple of those districts would be at risk in a wave election. Whereas a non-gerrymandered approach would give the Republicans at least 1 fewer seat right now, but also give them a couple more wave-proof seats.
Spoiler!
Last edited by octothorp; 08-31-2017 at 07:48 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
No, it's generally the opposite of that. Gerrymandering is designed to maximize your side's vote efficiency and minimize your opponent's vote efficiency.
