Tuco

You know, we're 6-7 years into the Trump era, and I figured I had gotten immune to reading ridiculous statements. But, uh, yeah, that has to be one of the single most fucked up line in political reporting history.

It’s a tough environment for moderate Republicans.

A bit tangent to Bannon is Guo Wengu, the billionaire Chinese dissident/criminal/conman. Bannon was trying to set-up a media company with him and was on his yacht when arrested, the first time. I don’t have the electronic copy to link, but I will type in one passage. — Peering into the camera, Guo announced the establishment of a shadow government, which he called the New Federal State of China. In Mandarin, he made an impassioned call to arms… Guo built toward a climactic finish, chanting a slogan - “Take Down the CCP!” In Chinese. After the ninth repetition, he switched to English, and Bannon joined in. Guo was in a celebratory mood. He kissed Bannon on the cheek, and gazing up at him, said, “Love You.” “Thank you,” Bannon said. “Are we still on live?” To close out the ceremony, they presented a statement of principles, which Guo signed in his own blood. (Bannon skipped that part.)

A bit tangent to Bannon is Guo Wengu, the billionaire Chinese dissident/criminal/conman. Bannon was trying to set-up a media company with him and was on his yacht when arrested, the first time. I don’t have the electronic copy to link, but I will type in one passage. — Peering into the camera, Guo announced the establishment of a shadow government, which he called the New Federal State of China. In Mandarin, he made an impassioned call to arms… Guo built toward a climactic finish, chanting a slogan - “Take Down the CCP!” In Chinese. After the ninth repetition, he switched to English, and Bannon joined in. Guo was in a celebratory mood. He kissed Bannon on the cheek, and gazing up at him, said, “Love You.” “Thank you,” Bannon said. “Are we still on live?” To close out the ceremony, they presented a statement of principles, which Guo signed in his own blood. (Bannon skipped that part.)

I agree. It's weird. There are two elements to the story: 1. Biden pushed back on more aid. 2. Biden "lost his temper." On the first one, that is a relatively objective statement. Whether it makes Biden bad depends on how you view the aid. Using the terms loosely, if you are a hawk, it makes Biden look bad and if you are a dove, it makes him look good. On the second point, it's pretty anti-Biden. It's pretty rare that you would describe "losing your temper" as a favorable statement. "Biden passionately objected.." would certainly sound better. And, another difference on it is it would be difficult to determine if "Biden lost his temper" from reading a transcript. It would imply direct observation, although it's possible a Republican leak would infer, reasonably or cynically, that Biden was angry. So, with all that in mind... ....I think it's unlikely it's the House Dems. I could see them possibly leaking the pushback, but it's along different lines (money) than what their letter pushed. But the second part is straight up self defeating. There is benefit in dragging Biden down before an election. Public disagreement is one thing - demonstrating you are not just a party stooge. But anonymously hurting the brand before an election is silly. ...I think it's unlikely it's Meadows' branch. It is counter to their argument - that Biden is just a blank check. ...I think it's unlikely it was an intentional leak from Biden loyalists in the administration. Ok, it does undermine Meadows' argument about the blank check, but it builds the "Biden is an angry old man" image that fits tightly how Republicans try to paint him. If they leaked it, they did so incompetently. And they don't seem incompetent. ...it could just be a admin official - maybe someone on the military side - getting frustrated and going off script. There are more than just the two parties in Washington. The Trump White House leaked like a sieve. There is no reason to believe everything comes out of the Biden White House is intentional. But the fact the cited multiple people makes that less likely unless there are several hawks getting pissed. And it happened in June. ...Another strong possibility would be Republican hawks who inferred Biden was angry if the transcripts were shared with them. If Ukraine does ultimately prevail, it will be an accomplishment cited by Biden 2024 campaign, rightly or wrongly. The Republicans have an interest in painting it as Zelensky winning the war despite Biden, instead of because of him. And, of course, it helps with the angry old main image they are cultivating.

He has always been about peace, love, and murdering immigrants.

I think I was pretty clear that the letter should not have been released. That doesn't mean your question isn't still worth discussing. You're the one who asked it after the Dems had withdrawn it. Why did you?

Sounds like it's also an opportunity for any poster who thinks Fetterman is now doomed.

Undecideds don't watch the debates, but they do read/hear the snippets. I am hopping the mother/doctor/politician snippit travels better than Fetterman's troubles. But, I am concerned just the general narrative of "that guy is still pretty fucked up" will become common accepted even amongst people who never watch a single clip or read a single line.

Regarding the timing, I am guessing one of two possibilities: 1) they were spooked by Meadows' statement about not giving a blank check to Ukraine support. It's possible that both Meadows and Jayapal are seeing some potential far-left-meets-far-right pickups by opposing the war, and she was trying to shore up the flank. Certainly, there are far-left voters who are open to progressive candidates, but are very concerned about the war machine. Progressive candidates are going to hear those concerns more than others. And the only threat to reelection that Jayapal has is being primaried from her left. Although, it does seem like Seattle is solidly pro-Ukraine and I haven't seen any flyers for antiwar protests. 2) the White House did something that pissed her off so she threw a shit bomb.

I don't think it's crazy. I think it's naive, and perhaps stupid. But, if you were to ask 10 people on the street, "should the US be open to direct talks with Russia to help resolve the Ukraine-Russian War?" most of them would say yes. It aligns with intuition - that there is nothing wrong talking to avoid a fight. It's the same reason Trump didn't see a big deal in having unilateral discussions with North Korea when our position has always been to have multilateral talks. Who has a seat at the table is one of the first things to negotiate in a negotiation. This letter is poor statecraft, but good statecraft seams a little crazy anyway. The way the question is worded is weird. The US can't initiate a ceasefire. If you are asking "what can the US offer that isn't up to Ukraine?", there are several items. I imagine Russia would like to talk about NATO membership - Ukraine, but also Finland and Sweden. Stepping back, it's possible that Turkey's objection to their joining may just be a stall to keep those cards on the table. Of course there are the sanctions that predated this invasion and probably some that predated the Crimea invasion. There are postwar weapons sales and troop deployments. The implication that this is entirely between Ukraine and Russia is just a naive as the letter. But, it has to be clear that the US will continue to support Ukraine as long as Russia troops are in Ukraine, including Crimea. That's not something the US will budge on. Yeah, she is probably lying. But it's good that she was lying, right? The only damage the letter did was expose a wedge between a small portion of Congress and the White House. Lying demonstrates that Biden is still in charge. Whatever division there is is minor. Sucks for her staff, but I would rather have her throw them under the bus than stand her ground. It's very important that she quickly pretended that she is on board. FWIW, after moving to Seattle 20 months ago, this is the first time I've disagreed with my new Member of Congress. After decades of regularly cringing when reading the paper in Nebraska, it's a little weird.

It’s nearly the script of that Abbot attack ad. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When is the last time a Dem pointed out that gas prices would be higher if not for fuel efficiency standards, EV subsidies, alternative fuel subsidies? Republicans focus on oil production because their lobbyists want them to focus on it, and lower gas prices is the rationale the lobbyists push. For Dems, the focus is environment and they kind of forget about the more immediate concerns of much of the public.

When I was 17, I had to babysit my 7 year old kid sister. Then I had some friends come over including a girl (Liz) I was interested in. to watch a movie. I told sis she could watch whatever movie we got with us. Turns out Liz really liked horror movies. We picked up The Hitcher. I couldn’t talk little sister out of watching it with us. She slept in my parents’ room for the next couple of weeks. That’s what you get for free babysitting.

This is the party that bent the knee to Trump. I wouldn’t make assumptions about what stupid shit they might do, particularly with a Dem President to blame.

Mostly true. NE-2, in theory, could have an effect on the White House, and it was gerrymandered after Obama won it in 2008 and Biden won it in 2020. (It was going to be gerrymandered for the Congress regardless, but it interesting that it went blue in the two last pre-census elections.) I will also say that gerrymandering has an effect on overall voter turnout. When the Congressmen and State Reps are effectively picked during the primary, there is less motivation for the the winning nominees to work voter turnout in the general. In a lot of places, the local campaigns can be more impactful at getting people to the polls than the national campaigns. And it just whittles away any local parties when you know you have little chance at winning or losing. Competitive districts get people involved.

At this point I wonder if the plan is to piss off Drearie, get him to issue some ruling, then file an appeal saying he's overstepping his bounds, lose on appeal but chew up time, and repeat as necessary. Working in unchartered territory gives them room to test every single fucking boundary that is necessarily invented as they go along. The testing is the point, not the result.

Well, I assume people are compelled to provide dna in paternity suits all the time. Maybe there isn’t a contempt threat with it, but your refusal would be strong evidence of a match.

"Rage" is a bit of slog, mainly because it is talking about Trump and COVID, two things that are not too fun to read about. But it is timely.

They might be classified. There is a lot of diplomatic stuff that is classified because their broad release could limit our diplomatic efforts. It's not all troop movement and spy identifications. If Un said "...you know, I'm only mostly heterosexual..." well, that should be classified because Trump breaking that confidence could have major diplomatic implications.

As an engineer, I hate that shit. I'm not going to highlight our weaknesses, but if I can't figure out a way to execute a project, it's a project I don't want. Projects that start off shitty are just going downhill from there. Life is too short to do shitty work. I recall a rather heated argument I had with our BD guy because wanted to commit to designing an oil refinery (based on customer legacy PIDs) when no one in our office had work in the refinery market. We found a work-around and the project evaporated anyway, but I was pissed. That kind of shit gets people killed.

He should be imprisoned for taking up three spaces. And what kind of GOP candidate drives a truck low enough that you can see the driver's "mid-thigh" from outside the truck.

The budget for the DoD in 2022 was $780B, which was $37B more than what the Biden Administration requested. The support for Ukraine costs a little more than Congressional military earmarks. (link) The amount the US spends on the military is absurd. It is more than what we were spending during the Cold War even adjusted for inflation. It absolutely needs to be reduced. But supporting Ukraine is the best money we will ever spend in strengthening our position against an adversary. Biden should state any dollar reduced from a Ukrainian package will instead be sourced from the defense budget. Trump did it for a fucking wall; Biden can do it for something actually related to national defense. That's the best of both worlds for me.

Put it on billboards. Dems get way too complacent when they think they’re going to win.

Maybe he just thought he was paying sex.