Associated Press: “As a meeting last August in the Oval Office to discuss sanctions on Venezuela was concluding, President Trump turned to his top aides and asked an unsettling question: With a fast unraveling Venezuela threatening regional security, why can’t the U.S. just simply invade the troubled country?”
“The suggestion stunned those present at the meeting, including U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, both of whom have since left the administration… In an exchange that lasted around five minutes, McMaster and others took turns explaining to Trump how military action could backfire and risk losing hard-won support among Latin American governments to punish President Nicolas Maduro for taking Venezuela down the path of dictatorship.”
“But Trump pushed back. Although he gave no indication he was about to order up military plans, he pointed to what he considered past cases of successful gunboat diplomacy in the region, according to the official, like the invasions of Panama and Grenada in the 1980s.”
Last summer, Trump was so fixated on invading Venezuela that he had to be talked down by multiple members of his administration and allies in the region https://t.co/O5kl5KJVun
— New York Magazine (@NYMag) July 4, 2018
“China is putting pressure on the European Union to issue a strong joint statement against President Trump’s trade policies at a summit later this month but is facing resistance,” Reuters reports.
“In meetings in Brussels, Berlin and Beijing, senior Chinese officials, including Vice Premier Liu He and the Chinese government’s top diplomat, State Councillor Wang Yi, have proposed an alliance between the two economic powers and offered to open more of the Chinese market in a gesture of goodwill.”
“One proposal has been for China and the European Union to launch joint action against the United States at the World Trade Organization.”
Another rebuke to Trump https://t.co/aSk9YTqtxP
— Vox (@voxdotcom) July 3, 2018
Michael Avenatti, the attorney representing adult film star Stormy Daniels, says he will launch a presidential bid in 2020 if President Trump runs for re-election, Politico reports.
Said Avenatti: “If he seeks re-election, I will run, but only if I think that there is no other candidate in the race that has a REAL chance at beating him. We can’t relive 2016. I love this country, our values and our people too much to sit by while they are destroyed.”
Good god. Alright, Avenatti has served his purpose, getting the Feds and Mueller to look at Cohen. Mission accomplished. I wish you all the luck in your lawsuits against Cohen and Trump, but stay the fuck out of politics, will you please?
Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) refused to endorse Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL), who is running for re-election against challenger Arthur Jones (R), an avowed Nazi, WCIA-TV reports. Said Rauner: “No. The one thing I will say is the person, that guy, Johnson or whatever his name is, should not be on the ballot.”
He is on the ballot. A member of your party. You are the leader of the state party. You are already responsible for the Nazi in your midst. You can only redeem yourself by electing the Democrat. Failure to do that means you are enabling a Nazi.
The idea that the Democrats can win over Trump supporters by getting tough on border security misses what is driving their xenophobia.https://t.co/z1mrZsfs85
— Washington Monthly (@washmonthly) July 3, 2018
“I try to be careful with the language that I use. When people ask me questions, for example, about why is Mr. Trump so submissive to Vladimir Putin, and whether or not Mr. Trump fears that the Russians have something on him, I say, I don’t know. Perhaps. Maybe. I just don’t want to get into details about what I know or don’t know. I have to be very mindful of my obligations as far as classified material is concerned.”
— Former CIA Director John Brennan, quoted by the New York Times.
Adam Davidson: “Many people assume that Cohen has an enormous amount of information that could shed light on Trump’s relationship with Russia, suspicious business activity, and, possibly, corruption in office. Cohen, after all, received millions of dollars from companies seeking his help in influencing Trump’s Administration. Cohen also held meetings with some of these new clients in Trump Tower. It would be a dramatic shift in Trump’s approach to business to allow his subordinate to profit from his name without some benefit to himself. It seems reasonable to imagine that Cohen may well have information that could damage, or even destroy, Trump’s Presidency. Yet what Cohen, in fact, knows remains a mystery.”
“Trump, for his part, has enormous power to punish or reward Cohen. As President, Trump can pardon him or use the full law-enforcement power of the federal government to punish him.”
“We are witnessing a grand, public Prisoner’s Dilemma, in which each man could, theoretically, destroy the other. Or, perhaps, they could work together to explain away any troubling information that comes out of the investigation of Cohen’s files. They can’t talk privately, because every interaction is likely to be scrutinized. Instead, they speak to each other through the media.”
The contradictions in the Rio Grande Valley are everywhere. They defy stereotype. But under Trump some have become impossible to resolve.https://t.co/3dYpRTsaZZ
— Crooked Media (@crookedmedia) July 3, 2018
President Trump tweeted “an unsubstantiated claim from an hardline Iranian cleric and circulated by a news agency linked to the country’s Revolutionary Guard, that thousands of Iranians were granted US citizenship as part of the 2015 nuclear deal,” the Guardian reports.
“He cited no evidence for the allegation.”
Because it is completely false. If I were Obama, I would sue Trump’s extremely large ass for defamation and take everything Trump owns.
EPA administrator Scott Pruitt kept a “secret” calendar to hide meetings or calls that he and his aides feared would “look bad” if leaked to the public, CNN reports. Said Kevin Chmielewski, Pruitt’s former deputy chief of staff for operations: “We would have meetings what we were going to take off the official schedule. We had at one point three different schedules. One of them was one that no one else saw except three or four of us.”
Meanwhile, Pruitt “directly appealed to President Trump this spring to fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions and let him run the Department of Justice instead,” CNN reports. “In an Oval Office conversation with Trump, Pruitt offered to temporarily replace Sessions for 210 days under the Vacancies Reform Act, telling the President he would return to Oklahoma afterward to run for office.”
“Advisers quickly shot down the proposal, but it came at a time when Trump’s frustration with Sessions over his decision to recuse himself from overseeing the Russia investigation had resurfaced.”
A historian explains what life was like for women in America before Roe v. Wade: https://t.co/o6Nr6evm8u
— Vox (@voxdotcom) July 4, 2018
That is what we are returning to. And don’t think that because you live in a state that allows abortions, or at least doesn’t have a law banning it, you’re life will be affected. With Roe v. Wade out of the way, there is nothing to stop a Republican House and a Republican Senate from passing, and a Republican President from signing, a nationwide abortion ban. The Supreme Court has already approved (in a case called Gonzales v. Carhart) a federal law, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, preventing one type of abortion on a nationwide basis. With Roe v. Wade overruled, there is little reason to expect the Court would interfere with a Congressional attempt to ban all abortions throughout the country.
So if you did not vote or voted Green or third party in 2014 and 2016, Donald Trump and his radical Christian Right thanks you.
“Following a court order to reunite more than 2,000 migrant children who were separated from their parents in May and June, the Trump administration has instructed immigration agents to give those parents two options: leave the country with your kids — or leave the country without them,” according to a copy of a government form obtained by NBC News.
“The new directive does not allow parents who were separated from their children under President Trump’s ‘zero tolerance’ policy to reunite with their children while they await a decision on asylum, a protection sought by thousands of migrant families fleeing violence in Central America.”
President Trump “plans to meet one-on-one with Vladimir Putin at the start of their July 16 summit in Helsinki, Finland… before allowing other aides to join the highly anticipated encounter with the Russian leader,” CNN reports.
“The meeting will be the first formal summit talks between them. They have met previously on the sidelines of conferences.”
President Trump reportedly plans to meet with Vladimir Putin one on one, with no advisers or staff present https://t.co/nivbDbBqA2
— New York Magazine (@NYMag) July 4, 2018
New York Times: “According to a person close to the president, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who has served 12 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is the leading candidate in the president’s mind, followed by Judge Amy Coney Barrett and then Judge Raymond Kethledge.”
“Mr. Trump believes Judge Kavanaugh has been on the bench long enough to give the president a sense of where he stands on various issues and that Judge Barrett is fairly young and could use more judicial experience. The administration might want to keep her in reserve should Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 85, leave the court.”
Washington Post: “An intensifying debate over Judge Brett Kavanaugh… gripped Republicans on Tuesday, with conservative critics highlighting past rulings and his links to GOP leaders while his allies — including inside the White House — forcefully defended him.”
Strzok may not comply with House subpoena to testify, his lawyer says https://t.co/DjWf0LA5G7 pic.twitter.com/ZP3RQfiIM3
— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) July 4, 2018
“Poland’s government carried out a sweeping purge of the Supreme Court on Tuesday night, eroding the judiciary’s independence, escalating a confrontation with the European Union over the rule of law and further dividing this nation. Tens of thousands took to the streets in protest,” the New York Times reports.
“Poland was once a beacon for countries struggling to escape the yoke of the Soviet Union and embrace Western democracy. But it is now in league with neighboring nations, like Hungary, whose leaders have turned to authoritarian means to tighten their grip on power, presenting a grave challenge to a European Union already grappling with nationalist, populist and anti-immigrant movements.”
Michael Cohen has removed all references to Trump from his Twitter bio. Subtle. https://t.co/Kj98LqcjkH
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) July 4, 2018
Avenatti might play Ross Perot’s 1992 role of reminding America of the sucking sounds coming from Russia.
Being the enemy of my enemy doesn’t make him my friend. I think he has as many screws loose as anyone else in this melodrama.
Probably be a little more effective if he wasn’t a deadbeat ambulance chaser… Not much to fear from this guy.
That’s not what Trump thinks.
You forget that Trump knows exactly what it is he did, if he hasn’t forgotten already, and he’s naturally paranoid anyway, so everyone is viewed as a threat. That’s why he spends so much time punching down.
“So if you did not vote or voted Green or third party in 2014 and 2016, Donald Trump and his radical Christian Right thanks you.”
In case facts still matter, if you voted Green or third party in Delaware you did nothing at all that helped elect Trump. There are only three states where it did.
“So if you did not vote or voted Green or third party in 2014 and 2016, Donald Trump and his radical Christian Right thanks you.”
So if you voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary, the one nominee that could lose to a reality game show celebrity, “Donald Trump and his radical Christian Right thanks you.”
Again, no. Delaware’s three electoral votes decided nothing, and neither did its primary. If you doubt me, run the numbers with Sanders winning the primary instead. Hey presto! In our Balkanized system, it’s almost impossible for us to matter.
You would prefer Delaware Democrats not to vote; that’s very Republican of you.
Of course not. You try to turn everything into a Manichean choice.
Their votes are the only ones that matter in a state or local election. They do not matter at all in a presidential election.
Would you prefer to pretend that’s not true?
EJ Dionne writes an interesting column that summarizes the work of two authors that provide data that blows up the CW on the behavior of independent voters and who exactly is the extremist party. I’ll be interested to read these. It won’t change the media narrative much, because they can’t make a claim to their strange vision of objectivity unless both sides are just as wrong.
Isn’t part of the problem that both sides think they have the moral high ground? I know it’s hard for you to believe people on the “right” actually believe they do, partly because their sense of what’s moral is so different from that of liberals and progressives. But people on the right think our sense of morality is twisted, too. Each side thinks the other is self-serving. I don’t know what to do about this. But maybe we should be ready for government that alternates extreme positions on both the left and the right.
Not sure you read this article:
Democrats draw “their strongest support from the groups with the most positive views of recent social and cultural changes.” Conversely, the GOP is strongest with groups having “the most negative views” of those changes.
I’m certain that the folks who thought that King George was AOK thought that there was something twisted about those to wanted their own country. The morality isn’t exactly what is at issue here. A vision for how this country should work for its citizens and how it should be in the world is.
Cassandra: You seem to think “recent social and cultural changes” are universally considered a moral good. Many would disagree with you and would consider it morally appropriate to do so.
I agree that events sometimes call for revolution, but that’s not a move to be made lightly.
You can substitute “vision of how this country should work” for “morality” if you want to,
The Arc of Justice would beg to differ with you.
And you should consult a dictionary to see the difference between the word “morality” and the entire set of words “vision of how this country should work”.
The good news about American history is that ending slavery, giving women and black people the vote, ending Jim Crow, and equal rights for gay people work out to be pretty damn fine morality points as well as a good vision for how this country should work.
The ARK of Justice is being torpedoed by the Trump administration
Yes it is. And we have too many Dems (altho fewer than previously) trying to excuse this away with the excuse of economic hardship.
Nathan, what do YOU think? do YOU think the social progress we made is good? do YOU think expansion of civil rights and equality is morally good?
Who gives a crap about the people who dont? Why should we bother with them? Why try and gain their approval? Those who were cautious with support of gay rights look only marginally better than those who opposed. Dont be only marginally better than the bastards.
And on a lighter note the hate Scott Pruitt has resigned as head of the EPA, break out the good stuff if you’ve got it. On a total downer note the temporary head of the EPA Andrew Wheeler, is possibly worse than Pruitt as he lacks the clown like clumsiness of Pruitt and knows how to weasel around the legal system. He has been referred to as “pulsating black sludge” by The Onion. I’ll just stick with enemy of the environment.
Pruitt being gone is a Good Thing. He should have left in a real life perp walk. And the DOJ has work to do here, except they are clearly down with corruption and ripping off the American taxpayer.
Cassandra: All those “shoulds” you use suggest some kind of moral vision. But I agree that “moral” might not be the right word, especially if you’re associating it with religion. I’m just talking about a vision of what’s right and wrong. You must have some reason for wanting things to be how you want them to be. On the other, other hand, “morality” suggests a fixed view of things that can never be compromised, even temporarily, which might not help with long-term political success. So maybe it is the right word.
I, too, would have enjoyed a Pruitt perp walk.
I really wish you would get your dictionary and get these terms straight. The basic morality we have to discuss around government is the one that is articulated in our founding documents and later founders like MLK. A country that is focused on justice for all and basic liberty is what we are talking about. That’s the history of this place — an expansion of who gets to be covered by all of that and gets to live a life free from injustice by the majority is the story. Seriously, if you want to make a case *against* any of these:
then man up and make that case. If you think that the New Deal (or its subsequent expansions)should be cut back or even restricted to certain people, then make that case. But handwaving at some vague moral necessity that might mean that some are less than others because of “long-term political success”. Is pretty damn meaningless.
Cassandra: I’m not against the advances you cite (which by the way we got through the “long-term political success” you dismiss). And nobody would argue against “justice” and “liberty” as abstractions. But not everybody defines those things, and the path leading to them, the same way. A lot of people who disagree with you think they are doing it for the right reasons. Just pointing that out doesn’t mean I feel the same way they do. You have a theory about how the American ideal should play out, which is pretty much mine too, but other people have different theories about what will lead to “true” justice and liberty. It seems useful to acknowledge facts and try to understand the other side, if only to take advantage of them and defeat them.
Democracy is specifically meant to be about working through issues and developing some consensus of governing. It is literally that. And in the USA, we have some foundational documents and principles we are supposed to be working from. All of that should underpin the “civic” self — that part of you that is working for the betterment of community. The biggest issue of our politics is that the “civic” self and your private self are now the same thing and too many of our private selves are busily working at “owning the libs” and not working at fixing Social Security. Some things are foundational and we share them — Justice for All. What we don’t share is whether or not a minority of white people get to decide who All is. That’s a difference in a vision for the country, how the country is supposed to work, how our civic selves are meant to work together. That might be a difference in morality for the minority of white people who still want to say who ALL is, but that’s not my problem.
This:
“Cassandra: I’m not against the advances you cite (which by the way we got through the “long-term political success” you dismiss). And nobody would argue against “justice” and “liberty” as abstractions. But not everybody defines those things, and the path leading to them, the same way.”
And this:
“Some things are foundational and we share them — Justice for All. What we don’t share is whether or not a minority of white people get to decide who All is. That’s a difference in a vision for the country, how the country is supposed to work, how our civic selves are meant to work together. That might be a difference in morality for the minority of white people who still want to say who ALL is, but that’s not my problem.”
Justice and liberty aren’t abstractions. They only become abstractions when applied to minority groups. Straight, white, Christians see nothing abstract when it comes to justice and liberty for them – and who they can marry, where they can shop, eat, live, their religion, a pharmacist filling their prescription, etc.. They are all for justice and liberty then, and have no problem applying it without gray areas. But as soon as you introduce LGBTQ, non-white, non-Christians then, and only then does their “morality” gets blurry.
If the political calculation relies on voters who can be pulled by bigotry, racism and sexism (hard or soft) then I’m concerned – especially since these voters are unreliable and usually return home. And I have no idea how we even get them when study after study has shown that these voters didn’t vote on economic anxiety, let alone “morality”. That doesn’t mean Dems don’t run on economic issues. They absolutely should run on economic issues while not abandoning ‘justice and liberty for all’ in the hopes that they can lure white voters while depressing their base.
And if appealing to concerns of LGBTQ, non-white, non-Christians costs us the white vote, then I’d say we never had that vote to begin with.
Of course justice and liberty are abstract ideas. Just like love, honor, courage and so forth. Consider courage: During the Vietnam War, some people thought protesting or avoiding it was cowardly and others thought it was courageous. It was a matter of which behavior actually expressed their idea of courage.
It’s just that I worry about liberal/progressive smugness. We were so sure of ourselves and of how others would/should see us that we didn’t see Trump coming. I do think Trump and a lot of his supporters are just assholes looking for an excuse. But I also think a lot of people despise what they see as our arrogance and might be able to back off from their extremism if we toned it down a little. That would help us politically.
These are perilous times (cliche alert!). So much hatred on each side could mean a battle ending in the near-destruction of one them. I wouldn’t want that side to be ours, which is what Trump is hoping for.
Maybe I’m naive. Maybe the time for what I’m talking about has passed. Maybe I should go look at that bridge some guy’s been trying to sell me.
Trumpublicans are out there whooping it up and making fun of rape survivors at their cult leader’s prodding and you’re worried about smugness? grow a fucking spine.
One of the thing that is difficult with these conversations is that we have progressives exhorting legislators to stick with their principles and now we have progressives thinking that it is our principles is why people don’t like us. That somehow backing off of our principles is a way to get people to like us. To get people to speak with us.
Seriously?
You stand for something or you do not. I’m certainly not going to be in the business of providing any quarter to people who think that separating kids from their parents is OK just because these are brown people and why care?
Your smug = standing for something among some of us. We have plenty of politicians who won’t stand for much other than getting along and that hasn’t helped anyone other than those politicians. If you think that is an OK state of being, then fine, but get out of the way of everyone fighting for something better.
I think some of you are being willfully obtuse. Or maybe just regular obtuse.
I expect that there is something you want to say that you won’t just come right out and say. You will need to say what you want to alleviate the obtuseness. Otherwise, you can reflect on the utility of looking for people to like you vs standing for what you mean.
Cassandra: What’s not clear? I don’t want liberals/progressives to get squashed by Trumpian fascists by having their main points lost through stridency, ridiculousness (some forms of “political correctness”) and, yes, smugness. Why are you so sure you’re the only one who could have the right idea about how to avoid this? Why do you think everybody who disagrees with you has an ulterior motive? Why do you think economic distress for people who disagree with you on other things has no meaning? That arc toward justice can take more than one route and travel at more than one pace.
So you have no principles you want to stand up for, no policy you want to advocate for, you just want to be the tone police.
Got it.
“I don’t want liberals/progressives to get squashed by Trumpian fascists by having their main points lost through stridency, ridiculousness (some forms of “political correctness”) and, yes, smugness.”
What are the main points and how are liberals being strident, ridiculous and smug about these points?