Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

I'll admit all politicians say stupid things, even Kamala Harris. 

Ignoring your candidates faux pas while railing against his opponent?

 

I’m not sure I understand your point on this one. Greg seems to be pointing out a potential flaw in the Harris candidacy. Kamala Harris was certainly nationally unpopular until exactly a couple of days ago, when she added “Biden replacement“ to her résumé. (That may be all it takes.)

Greg does not seem to be denying that Trump has lots of flaws himself.

Rod:  "The polls turned almost immediately"  

A bounce would be expected in these circumstances according to Nate Silver.  We need to give it a couple weeks to see where the polling settles.  

(Quote function did not seem to work because of long URL...)

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I still don't understand how or why you can ignore or dismiss the actions of Trump's campaign manager at the time, Paul Manafort and the connection with Russian intelligence that was uncovered after the Muller probe:

"Manafort was ‘grave counterintelligence threat’ due to Russian contacts, Senate panel says"

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/18/manafort-worked-with-russian-intel-officer-who-may-have-been-involved-in-dnc-hack-senate-panel-says-397597

Had this happened to a Democrat, there probably would have been multiple inquisitions, before and after the pardon...

Sorry, been out of town.   Manafort was convicted of tax fraud.   His contact with a Russian associate was insignificant and not cited as collusion by Mueller.   Your focus here is a lot like someone saying that the insignificant voter fraud that occurs every election justifies Trump’s big lie.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

That comparo is not even close.  Did you even read the link?

Yes.   I read a lot of “may have” speculation and a conclusion of no provable collusion in the Politico piece.   Have you read the Mueller report?   Far less bias.  

Bottom line, any collusion that might have occurred is unproven, was insignificant, and did not affect the election.   This is not what the opposition told us for three years.   Have you forgotten the thousands  of breathless collusion stories published and broadcast in the years after Trump’s election?   Collusion speculation was a daily event for the major news outlets and people like MSNBC ran that story exclusively for years!

“Russian Collusion” is the other “big lie” of the last decade.  Any insignificant contact between anyone associated with Trump and Russia that you can hint at but not prove does not change this, anymore than any insignificant election fraud changes the nature and scope of Trump’s big lie.   If you want to maintain objectivity you must recall the scope and pervasiveness of these big lies.   The liars were claiming that an election was stolen!   That a president was illegitimate!  

Nit picking Manafort’s alleged contacts does not change the nature or scope of the left’s big lie, even if the allegations against Manafort are some day shown to be true.   At best your evidence shows that Manafort knew a possible Russian agent.   There is no evidence of collusion to influence the election.   So, you have been about as successful at proving collusion as Trump’s army of disbarred and disgraced lawyers was successful at proving meaningful election fraud.

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Many folks on the left will agknowledge the faults with the Russian collusion story. Hillary conceded the day after the election. 

Most MAGA folks will tell you the 2020 election was stolen despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

Yep, I think this is a good point.  I think it is admirable and appropriate when lefties acknowledge that there was no significant Russian collusion.  I also think that those who still think the 2020 election was stolen are dupes.  

Going beyond this example though, I have low regard for wing nuts in both parties and I do not think there are more nuts on the right than the left.  Consider the current and absolutely pervasive story line, that Trump will end democracy, cancel all future elections and be an "existential threat" to the union.  Every single one of the talking heads on the left, plus all of the politicians on the left up to and including Biden have spouted out one variation or another of this canard.  "Existential threat" is without doubt the Democrat's main talking point this cycle. 

I think the "existential threat" story line is hoqwash, and I don't think the pundits and politicians believe their own rhetoric at all.  This makes "Existential threat" a big lie I suppose, but it is clearly opinion, and probably not intended to be believed literally, so I don't put it up there with collusion or stolen election lies.  Either way, I think that those who truly fear Trump is an existential threat to democracy lack any understanding of how our government works and how robust the checks and balances inherent in the system are.

That said, I think Trump's actions, demeanor, personality, and ego are disqualifying for high office.  Why do the D's insist on going the "existential threat" route rather than relying on Trump's glaring character flaws?   Like the criminal prosecutions, this line of attack is ineffective at best and maybe has backfired.  Of course it is too early to tell how Harris is going to approach these issues.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Tim who?!

Shapiro would have cemented Pennsylvania which is crucial to win but...SHAPIRO?!

I would have gone with Kelly, too...

I would have gone with Shapiro.  According to Nate Silver, in view of well-documented correlations between the midwestern swing states, the winner of PA is 90+ percent likely to win the electoral college.   Also, the fact that Shapiro is pro-Israel is not the burden the press thinks it is in the swing states.  On the contrary, a pro-Israel stance is an advantage in the swing states.

Kelly would be ideal for me, as a disenchanted republican, but I imagine the left wing of the Democratic party would have been displeased.

Walz is pretty much the "safe" Tim Kaine pick, and that did not work out well last time.  Shapiro would have been the better call in my opinion.  In this case, "better safe than sorry" might end up making the Ds very sorry.   That said, it is not like the VP choice matters that much on election day.

Jim

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

I really don't know much about him. I was hoping for Kelly from Arizona, but picking him could complicate things if they win and he leaves the Senate.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/vice-president-kamala-harris-names-minnesota-gov-tim-walz-her-running-mate

Still getting your news from Fox, I see...!  

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

This guy goes after the US government on Faux news to stir the troops, as if they need stirring:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGaCoURZV1Q


He's's also hawking his book on Faux: "Over Ruled"! 
Yup, we're over ruled!...

There is nothing controversial about Gorsuch's actual positions.  "Goes after the US government" what a misleading joke.  Gorsuch believes, as all conservatives do, that the US is over regulated and that the federal agencies have been ceded too much power by the legislature.  There are millions of examples.  Some probably have affected you personally.   How did that feel?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2024/08/04/justice_gorsuch_and_the_laffer_curve_of_law_628975.html

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

If you watched the video, you'd hear Gorsuch not only saying "the government is coming after you" which, of course, feeds the frenzy of the right wing extremists by adding credibility to their belief system, but also advancing the argument of "popularity" as a defining level of criteria for whether or not someone is treated justly by the courts. The main point I'm making here is that it should be the rule of law and not one's perceived grievances by the government, let alone one's stature, that determines the outcome of a trial or whether or not someone even goes to trial rather than a presumption of immunity...

Justice Gorsuch would agree with you.  Read this and let me know if you have any fundamental concerns about Gorsuch's judicial demeanor or philosophy. https://www.wsj.com/articles/neil-gorsuch-and-the-laffer-curve-of-law-good-people-get-hit-by-too-much-regulation-d2373754?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Back to the right wing frenzy, Gorsuch is no anarchist, as he makes clear int he WSJ interview.  He like many many others, including you, I am sure, knows that the agencies can overreach, and it is an independent judiciaries job to protect businesses and individuals from agency overreach.

providing a bulwark against agency overreach and generalized MAGA distrust of the government are not the same things.

Originally Posted by In Rod Kaufman

While I didn't get past the paywall, this clearly isn't about perceptions of government overreach despite his brief departures to them as his thinly veiled justifications for his outrageous comments. Not to mention that he and several others on the court are clearly biased against virtually any regulatory functions performed by the government even before they've heard the cases...

Click on my first link to Real Clear, then you should see a link that accesses the WSJ article for free.   It is good reading.