[y66]

johnu, on 2019-March-13, 12:55, said:

This is something that a Congressional oversight committee needs to investigate since it is obvious to all that the White House will do nothing.

Indeed. It looks like House Transportation Committee Chair Defazio (D-OR) is (finally) on the same wavelength.

Edit: BTW, Mitch McConnell's wife Elaine Chao runs the Department of Transportation. No doubt she will get to the bottom of this, one way or another.

[jjbrr]

Winstonm, on 2019-March-13, 11:47, said:

This just in. Paul Manafort, campaign manager for Individual-1, has been sentenced to 7 1/2 years in prison. At the same time, the state of New York has also indicted him on numerous state charges - which is indeed interesting, as it gives the appearance that the office of the special counsel and the New York state AG are working in unison to quash any pardon attempts (the president cannot pardon state crimes).

Edit: NYT

Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance has a history of collecting bribes to drop prosecutions, including slam-dunk felony fraud indictments for Ivanka and Trump Jr.

[johnu]

Chas_NoDignity_NoIntegrity_NoSelfControl, on 2019-March-12, 18:04, said:

...

[johnu]

Winstonm, on 2019-March-12, 10:20, said:

Let's see, Individual-1 populism = $1.5 trillion tax cut for the wealthy and an $845 billion cut to health care for the average person. Oh, I get it - we're all supposed to become Christian Scientists: problem solved!

Dennison is just getting started.

Trump said he wouldn’t cut Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare. His 2020 budget cuts all 3.

Quote

President Donald Trump’s 2020 budget breaks one of his biggest campaign promises to voters: that he would leave Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare untouched.

“I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid,” Trump told the Daily Signal, a conservative publication affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, in 2015.

Quote

In isolation, the Medicaid budget cuts amount to $1.5 trillion over 10 years, but looked at in the context of the new block grant as well the work requirements and ACA cuts, the cuts round out to about $777 billion — which could leave millions more uninsured.

The budget also continues an attack on Social Security, including to a program that gives assistance to those who have disabilities that prevent them from being in the workforce. In all, the cuts to Social Security amount to $25 billion over the next 10 years, cutting roughly $10 billion from the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program

More Dennison lies about not cutting social programs. Are we up to 10,000 or 20,000 lies since he was elected?

[y66]

I see Trump decided to ground the 737 MAX a few hours ago. Good for him.

Good take on this in this afternoon's NYT by James Hall who was the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board from 1994 to 2001.

[johnu]

barmar, on 2019-March-13, 08:34, said:

Am I the only one surprised that Trump is not associated with the college admissions bribery scheme? Or is it just a matter of time before it comes to light (like with Robert Kraft)?

Well, this latest college admissions bribery scandal is probably new and unrelated to anything that happened 50+ years ago (or 20+ years ago in the case of children Ivanka and Dumb and Dumber). But, make no mistake. Things like this have been going on ever since there were more applicants for a school than openings.

Dennison had such mediocre grades and test scores that he had Michael Cohen threaten to sue anybody with access to them to prevent them from leaking. How did he get into an Ivy league college with mediocre or even below average grades and test scores? Hmmm, Daddy Fred Trump paid Dennison the equivalent of a million dollars a year as a kid. A few million well placed donation dollars would certainly be enough to get even a dotard into a distinguished University.

[johnu]

y66, on 2019-March-13, 15:56, said:

I see Trump decided to ground the 737 MAX a few hours ago.

Basically the last country in the world to ground 737 Max planes. Many countries even disallowed flyovers over their airspace, in addition to landings and takeoffs.

Next week, I predict Dennison will be bragging how he was the first one in the world to react to the crashes of those planes to protect the American people.

[Winstonm]

johnu, on 2019-March-13, 16:04, said:

Basically the last country in the world to ground 737 Max planes. Many countries even disallowed flyovers over their airspace, in addition to landings and takeoffs.

Next week, I predict Dennison will be bragging how he was the first one in the world to react to the crashes of those planes to protect the American people.

It actually wouldn't surprise me to learn it was done to distract attention from the Manafort verdict.

[y66]

Upon further reflection, I think you can put the delay on grounding the 737 MAX on Trump. He picked Elaine Chao as Secretary of Transportation and like so many of his cabinet picks she has turned out to be as much of a swamp creature as SC-1.

[Winstonm]

It appears that Big Dick Toilet Salesman Matt Whitaker lied to Congress, after all:

Quote

Speaking to reporters after a two-hour meeting with Whitaker, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) presented Whitaker’s closed-door comments as a contradiction of his public testimony from February, during which Whitaker said Trump never expressed his dissatisfaction with Cohen for pleading guilty to various financial crimes and lying to Congress. When asked at that hearing whether he had ever discussed the Cohen case with Trump, Whitaker refused to answer the question.

“Unlike in the hearing room, Mr. Whitaker did not deny that the president called him to discuss the Michael Cohen case and personnel decisions in the Southern District,” Nadler said, referring to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, which brought the case against Cohen.

Here's what Individual-1 said about him at his appointment:

by twitter, of course

Quote

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
· Nov 7, 2018
We are pleased to announce that Matthew G. Whitaker, Chief of Staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions at the Department of Justice, will become our new Acting Attorney General of the United States. He will serve our Country well....

[jjbrr]

kenberg, re: reparations

I've never put much thought into reparations in this context. I suspect I won't put much more additional thought into it now that it's on my radar, unless media starts ramming it down our throats and I need to do my own research. It's a contributing factor to conflict, it is not the root cause. I understand both sides of the argument. I find myself agreeing with some points on both sides. It's a delicate situation.

Rather than calling it reparation, what if we called it investment in our collective future? Education reform, infrastructure improvement, equal rights? Are you still opposed to paying for it if they slap a different label on it? Before we start talking about reparations, why don't we talk about giving all Americans a fair roll of the dice? Let's talk about root cause.

I'll argue that your generation is a major contributor to the root cause, for a lot of reasons.

[kenberg]

jjbrr, on 2019-March-13, 20:17, said:

kenberg, re: reparations

I've never put much thought into reparations in this context. I suspect I won't put much more additional thought into it now that it's on my radar, unless media starts ramming it down our throats and I need to do my own research. It's a contributing factor to conflict, it is not the root cause. I understand both sides of the argument. I find myself agreeing with some points on both sides. It's a delicate situation.

Rather than calling it reparation, what if we called it investment in our collective future? Education reform, infrastructure improvement, equal rights? Are you still opposed to paying for it if they slap a different label on it? Before we start talking about reparations, why don't we talk about giving all Americans a fair roll of the dice? Let's talk about root cause.

I'll argue that your generation is a major contributor to the root cause, for a lot of reasons.

Changing the words that are used would not help. I favor "investment in our collective future", I very much favor it, but that leaves open the question of how this investment in our collective future is to take place. I very much favor education for example, and we no doubt need some investment in infrastructure. Presumably just about everyone favors equal rights even if they disagree whther some particular course of action does or does not promote equal rights. So: Yes to investment in our collective future. I favor it, I believe it would have broad support. No to reparations, I believe it will not have broad support.

It's not about phrasing, it's about how the money will be used. I am guessing that when you say "what if we called it..." you are not really suggesting that it is all about which words we use to describe one approach or the other. It's about what we choose to do.

As to generational arguments, I try to avoid them. It's true that I was born white and male, a citizen of the USA, and in 1939. Acknowledging that, I still favor investment in our collective future and I still oppose reparations.

[y66]

I have a different point of view which is that the core issue isn't money or labels, it's about recognizing that equal justice under the law and equal opportunity to get a decent education and a decent job have never applied to way too many black people and that this is unacceptable and must stop. You can legislate some things -- this is happening and a lot more is needed -- but you can't legislate away hate. In practical terms, this comes down to voting in PTA, local, state and national elections.

[y66]

From How a Bizarre Massachusetts Election Explains the Brexit Chaos by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub at NYT:

Quote

In order to give you our best sense of this week’s Brexit chaos and where it’s headed, we want to first tell you about an absolutely whackadoo election this week in little Massachusetts town called Fall River.

We promise this will make sense.

Fall River’s saga began in October, when its 26-year-old mayor, Jasiel Correia, was arrested on charges of defrauding investors and falsifying tax returns. He had raised funding to develop a marketing app called SnoOwl but, according to prosecutors, instead spent $230,000 of investors’ money on jewelry, clothes, a Mercedes and his successful mayoral campaign.

Mr. Correia contested the charges and refused to step down. So some citizens of Fall River got enough signatures to force a recall election, which was held on Tuesday.

Mr. Correia received an absolute walloping in the recall election. About 61 percent voted to remove him from office. Only 4,911 people, or 38 percent of turnout, voted to keep him in office. It was a clear popular mandate.

But there was a twist in the results. The ballot had two questions: one on whether to recall Mr. Correia and another on whom to replace him with. Five people ran to fill the mayor’s seat — but Mr. Correia was one of them.

It might seem like the height of youthful hubris that a 20-something mayor under federal indictment would run for re-election amid a recall vote.

It turned out that, whether he knew it or not, Mr. Correia was onto something. He received 4,808 votes in the mayoral race, almost the exact same number he’d gotten in the recall. But the other four candidates split the remaining vote. His 38 percent support was enough to put him in first.

Yes, that’s right: The same election that removed Mr. Correia by a nearly two-to-one margin also returned him to office.
Democracy — there’s no easy way to say this — can be a ridiculous system sometimes.

Which brings us back to Brexit.

Part of what’s confounding Britain’s many votes this week over how or when to leave the European Union is that, as in Fall River, British governance is shaped by two different elections that produced two different results.

The first of those elections, the 2016 referendum on whether to leave the European Union, recorded a slight majority of voters choosing to leave and a slight minority choosing to stay.

The second, a general election held in 2017, muddied that mandate and deepened divisions over what sort of Brexit to have.

The ruling Conservative party lost some seats, which undercut perceptions that the party had a mandate to follow the vision of its leader, Prime Minister Theresa May. The opposition Labour party gained seats, but did not win a majority and did not have a clear Brexit position.

So, on the one hand, British lawmakers believe that, because of the 2016 vote, they have a mandate to make Brexit happen. But the 2017 vote left the Conservatives too weak and disunited to actually do that because there is no clear mandate for a specific plan or for following or rejecting the prime minister’s leadership.

That muddle is coming through in this week’s series of Parliamentary votes.

Just as British voters did not express a clear majority for any specific vision in the 2017 general election, British lawmakers cannot form a clear majority for any specific plan. Mrs. May’s plan failed by a triple-digit margin when it was put to a vote. A “no-deal” Brexit, favored by hard-liners, is also expected to fail, as of the time of this writing. And there is not enough of a majority to push through other options, like a second referendum or simply revoking Brexit.

Capturing public sentiment and converting it into governance is a messy, imperfect science. The way that you design an election can shape the outcome just as much as the actual choices made by voters, and sometimes more.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2019-March-14, 10:19, said:

From How a Bizarre Massachusetts Election Explains the Brexit Chaos by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub at NYT:

Possibly there is a way forward. The problem is that "stay or go" seemed like a binary choice but it isn't since leaving requires negotiation so the "go" is ill-defined.. Perhaps the EU could be asked for more time, but with a very specific plan to bring it to a conclusion. There would be a new referendum, and the choice would be truly binary: Accept the deal that May negotiated with the EU and get out, or reject the deal that May negotiated and stay in.

Probably things are now such that thiswon't fly. it's a lesson for us all.I realize I know to little of all of this to suggest anything that has not already been suggested somewhere else.

[barmar]

johnu, on 2019-March-13, 16:00, said:

Well, this latest college admissions bribery scandal is probably new and unrelated to anything that happened 50+ years ago (or 20+ years ago in the case of children Ivanka and Dumb and Dumber). But, make no mistake. Things like this have been going on ever since there were more applicants for a school than openings.

Dennison had such mediocre grades and test scores that he had Michael Cohen threaten to sue anybody with access to them to prevent them from leaking. How did he get into an Ivy league college with mediocre or even below average grades and test scores? Hmmm, Daddy Fred Trump paid Dennison the equivalent of a million dollars a year as a kid. A few million well placed donation dollars would certainly be enough to get even a dotard into a distinguished University.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were donations involved in getting DT into college.

But there's a big difference between giving preferential treatment to large donors and legacies, and committing fraud and bribery. Maybe the former isn't fair, but at least it's done in the open. A donation benefits all students and faculty, it doesn't go into an individual's bank account.

When I mentioned Trump's possible involvement, I didn't wasn't thinking about getting him or his children into colleges, I meant he might be on the receiving end of the current scam, or maybe involved in hooking celebrities up with the scammer, etc. Similar to his relationship to the massage parlor where Robert Kraft was getting sex.

[johnu]

barmar, on 2019-March-15, 11:21, said:

I wouldn't be surprised if there were donations involved in getting DT into college.

But there's a big difference between giving preferential treatment to large donors and legacies, and committing fraud and bribery. Maybe the former isn't fair, but at least it's done in the open. A donation benefits all students and faculty, it doesn't go into an individual's bank account.

When I mentioned Trump's possible involvement, I didn't wasn't thinking about getting him or his children into colleges, I meant he might be on the receiving end of the current scam, or maybe involved in hooking celebrities up with the scammer, etc. Similar to his relationship to the massage parlor where Robert Kraft was getting sex.

About the Manchurian President's children admissions to Penn, he donated at least $1.48 Million to Penn around the time his children were admitted to Penn.

Donald Trump may have donated over $1.4 million to Penn

Quote

Yet, an exhaustive search by The Daily Pennsylvanian found that Trump may have cumulatively donated at least $1,480,500 to Penn, based on University reports, his foundation’s tax filings and other sources.

I am strongly against any pay for admission schemes, whether in the open or not.

[kenberg]

This cheating scandal could be an occasion for some serious re-thinking about elite colleges. If lazy spoiled brat kids with who need to cheat to score in the 1400s on SATs can survive even one semester at an elite college, we should ask just what is elite about it. Of course a kid that wants to learn is presented with great opportunity, but I went to the University of Minnesota and that was very definitely true there as well. So a kid that wants to learn can do so at a state run university, and apparently a kid who wants to party can survive at an elite college, possibly more easily than at a state run university. It seems that what the elite colleges are offering is the word "elite". If someone wants to pay 500K for that, maybe we should let them.

[johnu]

The despicable Manchurian President knows no national boundaries:

Trump Uses Same Rhetoric As New Zealand Shooting Suspect After Condemning His Actions

Quote

The suspect decided to launch the attack, he said, “to show the invaders that our lands will never be their lands, our homelands are our own and that, as long as a white man still lives, they will NEVER conquer our lands.”

Quote

But the president has played a part in stoking xenophobia, including by framing illegal immigration as an “invasion,” enforcing a travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries and referring to some undocumented immigrants as “animals.”

And then there was this:

Trump Encourages Violence From His Supporters. They’re Listening.

Quote

President Donald Trump this week issued a thinly veiled threat of violence against his opponents, saying that members of the police, military and biker gangs could “play it tough” if they “reach a certain point.”

It was a disturbing remark, but even more disturbing is the fact that it’s part of a long history of Trump encouraging his supporters to engage in violence. Largely unchecked by his party’s leadership, Trump’s rhetoric has become normalized despite its real-world ramifications.

Grand Wizard Dennison has abandoned any pretense of respect for the rule of law.

Hmmm, Dennison's mirror must have been broken when he had this to say:

‘I Don’t Really’ See A Rise In White Nationalism

Quote

According to a pool report, one reporter asked the president if he saw a rise in white nationalism around the world.

“I don’t really,” Trump responded. “I think it’s a small group of people that have very, very serious problems, I guess. If you look what happened in New Zealand, perhaps that’s the case. I don’t know enough about it yet. … But it’s certainly a terrible thing.”

Of course, there are good people on both sides The Racist in Chief has almost singlehandedly increased racism and hate crimes in the US to levels not seen in generations.

[y66]

I wonder why Trump keeps using white nationalist rhetoric?