***Official Political Discussion Thread***

John Dean the remix?
jbhmmm.png
 
itsaboutthattime said:
Pettiness

Click to expand...


There was a NT Times article on this last week. I sent it to a republican acquaintance. He response, "That article doesn't explain the facts. What was the cost of keeping them open and the number of votes each was getting. Are they opening up others in their place. Lots of unknowns in that biased article."

Just head in the sand despicable. It's disgusting.
 
As far as Pelosi is concerned. If you want to throw her out to appeal to Republicans or swing voters, don't because the next speaker will instantly be vilified by right wing media. Also, let's out Pelosi because democrats constantly lose so many damn elections, the DNC chairs and the candidates, out in the field, are responsible for winning.

With that said, I don't know why Democratic candidates are scorned for criticizer her from her left. The Speaker of the House serves at the pleasure of the members of the House. When folks say that Nancy Pelosi is extremely progressive, it plays into the Republican and neoliberal Democratic framing. based on her voting record, she is a standard Democratic functionary. It seems like her progressive bonafides are entirely rooted in the fact that she is based in a city with a large LGBTQIA community.

Again, the conservatives, who called her a "San Francisco liberal" as a anti-gay dog whistle, we can ignore them. But Pelosi's personal brand is San Francisco and all it entails and for those of us on the pro worker left, San Francisco has become a symbol of unaffordable housing, union busting, rainbow capitalism, gentrification, late capitalism and peak neoliberalism. The mention of that city is a political Rorschach test on the left, particularly when it comes to the notion of merit. The center-left sees the techies as the best and brightest, the DSA-Bernie left sees them as blood suckers who hide behind the veneer of feigned futurism.

So let's stop acting like it's horrible betrayal of progressive values if Democratic candidates don't commit to yet another pelosi speakership before they even have won their respective elections.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/us/politics/don-mcgahn-mueller-investigation.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
McGahn, White House Counsel, Has Cooperated Extensively in Mueller Inquiry

I noted some parts I found particularly interesting, it's a quite lengthy article.
Excerpt:
In at least three voluntary interviews with investigators that totaled 30 hours over the past nine months, Mr. McGahn described the president’s furor toward the Russia investigation and the ways in which he urged Mr. McGahn to respond to it. He provided the investigators examining whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice a clear view of the president’s most intimate moments with his lawyer.

Among them were Mr. Trump’s comments and actions during the firing of the F.B.I. Director, James B. Comey, and Mr. Trump’s obsession with putting a loyalist in charge of the inquiry, including his repeated urging of Attorney General Jeff Sessions to claim oversight of it. Mr. McGahn was also centrally involved in Mr. Trump’s attempts to fire the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, which investigators might not have discovered without him.


Excerpt 2:
Mr. McGahn’s cooperation began in part as a result of a decision by Mr. Trump’s first team of criminal lawyers to collaborate fully with Mr. Mueller. The president’s lawyers have explained that they believed their client had nothing to hide and that they could bring the investigation to an end quickly.

Mr. McGahn and his lawyer, William A. Burck, could not understand why Mr. Trump was so willing to allow Mr. McGahn to speak freely to the special counsel and feared Mr. Trump was setting up Mr. McGahn to take the blame for any possible illegal acts of obstruction, according to people close to him. So he and Mr. Burck devised their own strategy to do as much as possible to cooperate with Mr. Mueller to demonstrate that Mr. McGahn did nothing wrong.

In fact, Mr. McGahn laid out how Mr. Trump tried to ensure control of the investigation, giving investigators a mix of information both potentially damaging and favorable to the president.
Mr. McGahn cautioned to investigators that he never saw Mr. Trump go beyond his legal authorities, though the limits of executive power are murky.


Excerpt 3:
At the same time, Mr. Trump was blaming Mr. McGahn for his legal woes, yet encouraging him to speak to investigators. Mr. McGahn and his lawyer grew suspicious. They began telling associates that they had concluded that the president had decided to let Mr. McGahn take the fall for decisions that could be construed as obstruction of justice, like the Comey firing, by telling the special counsel that he was only following shoddy legal advice from Mr. McGahn.

Worried that Mr. Trump would ultimately blame him in the inquiry, Mr. McGahn told people he was determined to avoid the fate of the White House counsel for President Richard M. Nixon, John W. Dean, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obstruct justice in the Watergate scandal.

Mr. McGahn decided to fully cooperate with Mr. Mueller. It was, he believed, the only choice he had to protect himself.


Excerpt 4:
Mr. McGahn gave to Mr. Mueller’s investigators, the people said, a sense of the president’s mind-set in the days leading to the firing of Mr. Comey; how the White House handled the firing of the former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn; and how Mr. Trump repeatedly berated Mr. Sessions, tried to get him to assert control over the investigation and threatened to fire him.


Final excerpt: (Emmet Flood is reportedly a very good lawyer and far better than the president's other lawyers)
As the months passed on, it became apparent that Mr. McGahn and Mr. Burck had overestimated the amount of thought that they believed the president put into his legal strategy. Rather than placing the blame on Mr. McGahn for possible acts of obstruction, Mr. Trump has yet to even meet with the special counsel, his lawyers resisting an invitation for an interview. Mr. McGahn is still the White House counsel, shepherding the president’s second Supreme Court nominee, Brett M. Kavanaugh, through the confirmation process.

Mr. Mueller, armed with Mr. McGahn’s account, is still trying to interview witnesses close to the president. But the White House has a new lawyer for the investigation, Emmet T. Flood, who has strong views on privilege issues. When the special counsel asked to interview Mr. Kelly, Mr. Flood contested the request, rather than fully cooperate.
 
Last edited:
rexanglorum said:
As far as Pelosi is concerned. If you want to throw her out to appeal to Republicans or swing voters, don't because the next speaker will instantly be vilified by right wing media. Also, let's out Pelosi because democrats constantly lose so many damn elections, the DNC chairs and the candidates, out in the field, are responsible for winning.

With that said, I don't know why Democratic candidates are scorned for criticizer her from her left. The Speaker of the House serves at the pleasure of the members of the House. When folks say that Nancy Pelosi is extremely progressive, it plays into the Republican and neoliberal Democratic framing. based on her voting record, she is a standard Democratic functionary. It seems like her progressive bonafides are entirely rooted in the fact that she is based in a city with a large LGBTQIA community.

Again, the conservatives, who called her a "San Francisco liberal" as a anti-gay dog whistle, we can ignore them. But Pelosi's personal brand is San Francisco and all it entails and for those of us on the pro worker left, San Francisco has become a symbol of unaffordable housing, union busting, rainbow capitalism, gentrification, late capitalism and peak neoliberalism. The mention of that city is a political Rorschach test on the left, particularly when it comes to the notion of merit. The center-left sees the techies as the best and brightest, the DSA-Bernie left sees them as blood suckers who hide behind the veneer of feigned futurism.

So let's stop acting like it's horrible betrayal of progressive values if Democratic candidates don't commit to yet another pelosi speakership before they even have won their respective elections.
Click to expand...
-I hardly ever here her called extremely progressive by Dems, just a progressive. Which she is.

Your claim that her progressive bonafides are from her being rooted from her being from San Francisco and not her voting record is ridiculously. You know you are being dishonest here.

By most places that track how left-leaning members of Democrats in Congress are, Pelosi is always in the upper quartile. When you take in consideration all of Congress she is get close or into the top 10-15 percent The Dems as a party is left of the ideological center, and Nacy Pelosi is firmly left of the average Democrat. So unless leftist have rewritten what it means to be progressive (i.e be like Bernie or your not one) then Nancy Pelosi is what would be called a progressive in the last couple decades.

https://voteview.com/parties/100/democratic-party

-I don't even know what to make of the San Fransico rant. Like I'm inclined to agree with the general point but what does have to even do with Pelosi. Ro Khanna is from the bay area too, is a massive progressive darling, but sings the praises of the same tech industry that has wreaked havoc on San Fran. I doubt that any liberal that cares looks at San Fran as a 100% success story. Like it is always gonna come back to grabbing some moral high ground. And how fair is it for Nancy Pelosi to be a punching bag for conditions she didn't bring into being, nor she is seemingly happy about. Pelosi doesn't have to answer for San Fran just like Obama doesn't have to answer for Chicago.

-Hardly is acting like it is a horrible betrayal to not give support to Nancy Pelosi now, but can we stop acting like suckas and throwing an ally under the bus for no good reason; with all due respect but you didn't make one. You claim that Dems get mad when she is attacked from the left, welp, I hardly hear them. It is not her job to foster, grow, and favor a leftist movement in Congress. Like you said, it is people on the ground's job to win seats to build a coalition. The major functions of her job she is good at and the politics are closer to the far left of the party than the far right.

Like how many times does the far left think it is cool to align with the right to push a ****ty talking point. On the Tea Party, Brexit, identity politics talk, Hillary's corruption, Pelosi. Like isn't the whole thing about the left is that they keep it #1HUNNA all the time? So why are they so mealy-mouthed when it comes to rejecting talking points that they know are mainly being peddled by the right, ones that are draped in racism, sexism and straight up lies.

Like damn, they don't need to cheerlead for Pelosi, but those candidates need to stop being useful idiots for the right for the millionth time. There are enough centrist running this year doing that already.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

shaboozy
What's your NT routine?
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
ogbobbyjohnson773
ogbobbyjohnson773
chezzer10
***MLB FEET, EQUIPMENT, AND UNIFORMS 2024***NEW THREAD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
9K
chezzer10
chezzer10
datznasty
Official Niketalk Custom Basketball Shorts Thread
Replies
6
Views
2K
datznasty
datznasty

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom