[AMV] Amerikaanse politiek #606 Middle-Class Joe

twitter:

latimes twitterde op donderdag 21-03-2019 om 19:21:28 Breaking: The commandant of the Marine Corps is warning that deployments to the U.S.-Mexico border and funding transfers under the president's emergency declaration are contributing to an “unacceptable risk” to the Corps’ combat readiness. https://t.co/guKDSr1MqD reageer retweet

quote:

The commandant of the Marines has warned the Pentagon that deployments to the southwest border and funding transfers under the president's emergency declaration, among other unexpected demands, have posed “unacceptable risk to Marine Corps combat readiness and solvency.”

In two internal memos, Marine Corps Gen. Robert Neller said the “unplanned/unbudgeted” deployment along the border that President Trump ordered last fall, and shifts of other funds to support border security, had forced him to cancel or reduce planned military training in at least five countries, and delay urgent repairs at bases.

The border deployment and funding transfers, as well as recovery costs from hurricanes Florence and Michael, new housing allowances and civilian pay raises, are taking a toll on combat readiness, Neller wrote to Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and Navy Secretary Richard Spencer.

The Times obtained copies of the memos, dated Feb. 19 and March 18.

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

Several Democratic presidential candidates will skip the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's policy conference this year after a prominent progressive group called on them to boycott the event.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., will all ditch the conference, the Associated Press reported, and a spokesman for former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, told NBC News that he also will not attend.

Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, will not be going, The Jewish Week reported, and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro also won't show, according to HuffPost.

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who is considering running for president as an independent, will also skip the conference, the Associated Press reported.

Josh Orton, a policy director for Sanders, told NBC News that the senator is "concerned about the platform AIPAC is providing for leaders who have expressed bigotry and oppose a two-state solution.”

Sanders didn't attend the 2016 conference while he was running in the Democratic presidential primary, but addressed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at length during a speech around the time of the event.

The candidates' decisions to skip the prominent pro-Israel lobbying group’s conference come one day after liberal group MoveOn.org called on all 2020 presidential candidates to steer clear of the event.

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

A top Interior Department official told oil industry leaders the Trump administration is seeking to sign contracts leasing new coastal waters for oil drilling under favorable terms that will be difficult for future presidents to revoke or rewrite.

Joe Balash, the assistant secretary for land and minerals management, outlined that approach to oil industry leaders attending an International Association of Geophysical Contractors conference in Houston last month, according to audio obtained by Bloomberg News.

“When it comes to our specific royalty terms -- anything that’s under contract -- we still enjoy the sanctity of contracts in this country and I expect that’s going to last for some time,” Balash told the IAGC conference. “So getting our leases out -- and out on terms that are competitive and have the ability to sustain the long life of a property once it goes into production -- is also key.”

The Interior Department is already developing a new five-year plan of offshore oil and gas leases that could give energy companies opportunities to vie for virgin territory in the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans. But at the conference, Balash was pressed to describe how the Interior Department also is pursuing policy changes that would make the U.S. more attractive to oil companies eyeing cheaper prospects in South America -- and ensure they will endure whenever a new president enters the White House.

That could include lowering royalty rates that energy companies pay the U.S. government on any oil and gas extracted from federal waters. An Interior Department advisory committee has recommended slashing royalty rates for offshore oil and gas production, but so far, the Trump administration has not followed the advice.

Leases set terms for royalty payments that can govern oil production at some offshore sites for decades to come.

Balash also stressed the importance of taking “advantage of the opportunities to open up some of our own areas that have not yet been fully explored” and signaled those areas included the Atlantic Ocean, where the government has given geophysical companies initial authorizations to conduct seismic surveys designed to help seek out potential oil and gas reserves. At least some of those firms were present at the IAGC conference, according to meeting documents.

Representatives of the Interior Department did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 21-03-2019 om 17:50:46 After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability! reageer retweet

quote:

President Trump declared on Thursday that the United States should recognize Israel’s authority over the long disputed Golan Heights, delivering a valuable election-eve gift to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but jettisoning decades of American policy in the Middle East.

Mr. Trump’s announcement, in a midday Twitter post, came after persistent pressure from Mr. Netanyahu, a close political ally who is fighting for his survival in the election scheduled for April 9, and has invoked his friendship with the American president as a prime argument for staying in office.

But Mr. Trump’s move, while popular in Israel and among some lawmakers in Congress, is likely to be condemned almost everywhere else. The United Nations has rejected Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights since 1967, when Israeli troops seized the 400 square miles of rocky highlands from Syria during the Arab-Israeli war.

It will also reverberate throughout the Middle East and could undermine Mr. Trump’s long anticipated peace proposal for Israel and the Palestinians. The White House has been enlisting support for the plan among Arab leaders who now face the prospect of acquiescing in the loss of land they had long claimed as Arab.

As a practical matter, Mr. Trump’s announcement changes little. There is no negotiation underway on the status of the Golan Heights, nor any expectation that Israel is going to withdraw from it. The United States could veto any United Nations Security Council resolution condemning the move.

But as a symbolic step, the decision is momentous — underlining Mr. Trump’s willingness to flout diplomatic orthodoxy and shake up a debate over the Middle East that has changed little since the 1970s.

“I’ve been thinking about doing that for a long time,” Mr. Trump said to Fox Business Network in an interview scheduled to air on Friday. “Every president has said ‘do that,’” he said, “I’m the one that gets it done.”

Mr. Trump brushed aside suggestions that he was trying to help Mr. Netanyahu in the election, professing to be only vaguely aware of the Israeli leader’s political challenges. He plans to welcome Mr. Netanyahu to the White House next Monday.

Yet unlike the president’s earlier decision to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which was mandated by Congress and fulfilled a promise he made during the 2016 presidential campaign — one made by previous presidential candidates — this latest move was both a first for an American president and almost purely a gesture to Mr. Netanyahu.

The Israeli leader welcomed it as such during a meeting in Jerusalem with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

“President Trump has just made history,” said a beaming Mr. Netanyahu, who said he called the president to thank him on behalf of the Israeli people after his tweet. “He did it again.”

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op vrijdag 22-03-2019 om 01:00:10 Eric Swalwell this AM on Hope Hicks: "She also told me when I interviewed her that she had told lies for the president, and when I asked her what she had lied about, she refused to testify. And then the Republicans did not force her to actually give us an answer." @MSNBC reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 12:55 schreef EipNiC het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 21-03-2019 om 21:12:40 We are here today to take historic action to defend American Students and American Values. In a few moments, I will be signing an Executive Order to protect FREE SPEECH on College Campuses.https://t.co/gFFnSl1bEF reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op vrijdag 22-03-2019 om 13:00:01 Cindy Yang helped Chinese tech stars get $50K photos with Trump. Who paid? Yang isn't saying—but she and 3 associates donated $135,500 to Trump Victory before an event. Selling tix to campaign fundraisers without disclosing the buyer to the FEC is illegal. https://t.co/74zngfaZui reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 13:05 schreef EipNiC het volgende:

[..]

Blijkbaar niet afdoende.

quote:

“We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet, and we have to do something. We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. And we have to talk to them. Maybe in certain areas closing that Internet up in some way [audience member cheers]… Somebody will say, ‘oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people. We have a LOT of foolish people.”

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 29-11-2016 om 12:55:13 Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail! reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 13:14 schreef EipNiC het volgende:

[..]

Wat een randdebiel die man . Maar ik zie niet waarom Trump z'n achterlijkheid de nood verminderd?

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 13:25 schreef EipNiC het volgende:
Ah, je doet alsof je neus bloed. Dan ga ik maar naar de kapper.

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 13:14 schreef EipNiC het volgende:
Maar wat vinden jullie van Andrew Yang?

quote:

Nobody Knows Anything About ‘Electability’
When pundits anoint Biden—or Sanders or O’Rourke—as the likeliest to beat Trump, they’re making lots of dubious assumptions.

Have we learned nothing? In 2016, very few political writers, myself emphatically included, thought Donald Trump would win the Republican nomination, let alone the presidency. Very few thought Bernie Sanders would win 23 states and 13 million votes in his Democratic-primary battle with Hillary Clinton.

The voters were lousy prognosticators too. Although polls generally suggested that Sanders would fare better against Trump, voters overwhelmingly believed Hillary Clinton had a better chance of winning the general election. And in the closing weeks of the 2016 campaign, they overwhelmingly predicted that Clinton, not Trump, would triumph.

The point is that we, and they, simply don’t know. Electability is extremely hard to predict. And when pundits discuss it, they often rely on unstated and dubious assumptions—which usually lead them to predict that the most centrist candidate with the most establishment support is the person general-election voters will like best.

All this glib talk about electability has a cost. It leads commentators, often implicitly, to give “electable” candidates a pass when their policy views are fuzzy or flat-out wrong. So what should journalists do? It’s simple: Spend less time discussing which candidates can win the presidency and more time discussing what they’d do if they actually did.

To grasp how questionable much of the discourse surrounding “electability” is, consider the two candidates who, according to conventional wisdom, are considered best able to defeat Trump in 2020. The first is Joe Biden. The reason: As a Washington Post headline put it last fall, “Biden Appeals to Working-Class Whites Who Defected to Trump.”

But does he really? The evidence suggests that most of the voters who supported Barack Obama and then Trump are not Democrats who “defected” to Trump. They’re Republicans or Republican-leaning independents who “defected” to Obama and in the years since have grown ever more ensconced in the GOP. So it’s not clear that any Democratic candidate could lure many of them away from Trump next year.

Nor is it obvious that Biden would be best suited to doing so. Yes, his race and gender might prove an advantage. Yes, he might be harder to tar as a socialist radical. But Biden supported NAFTA and the Iraq War, and he’s been a Washington insider for almost a half century. In 2016, Trump voters expressed their deep pessimism about the state of the country by voting for radical disruption. If some have now lost faith in Trump, and thus grown even more disillusioned with politics than they were before, wouldn’t they look for a different species of disrupter, perhaps an anti-establishment populist such as Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren? Why go for the Democratic candidate who, more than almost any other, represents the pre-Trump status quo?

And even if Biden did prove better able to win back working-class whites than his competitors, could he rouse the Democratic Party’s African American and female base? The fact that his advisers are reportedly considering asking Stacey Abrams to be his running mate suggests that they themselves have doubts. But if choosing Abrams boosts Biden among women and people of color, why wouldn’t it hurt him among white men who backed Trump?

Do these questions mean Biden is less electable than other candidates? Not at all. What they mean is that we really don’t know.

It’s the same with Beto O’Rourke. His boosters say he’s like Obama: appealing to moderate whites because of his unifying, upbeat message, but also rousing to progressives, who find him idealistic and inspirational. As one Democratic bundler told Politico, “He’s Barack Obama, but white.” But the white part matters. You can’t assume O’Rourke is more electable than Kamala Harris or Cory Booker without explaining how O’Rourke could match the epic African American turnout numbers that Obama elicited in 2008 and 2012, but that Clinton did not match in 2016.

Moreover, saying that O’Rourke would appeal to “moderate” or “centrist” whites glosses over a critical distinction: It depends on which “moderates” we’re talking about. O’Rourke’s cultural liberalism, pro-business background, and unifying, optimistic rhetoric might serve him well among the upper-middle-class Democrats and independents who admire Michael Bloomberg. But is a candidate who has backed Trade Promotion Authority and praised NAFTA best suited to winning back working-class voters in the industrial midwestern states that gave Trump the presidency? In a recent interview with Thomas B. Edsall of The New York Times, Paul A. Sracic, a political scientist at Youngstown State University, suggested that “O’Rourke’s vague, ‘We all need to come together’ message will not resonate with people who see life as a battle. Working class voters believe in pugilistic politics.” Why is Sracic’s take less plausible than that breathless Democratic bundler’s?

Anyone can play this game. Maybe Sanders is the most electable because his pugilism can win over anti-establishment, anti-corporate Trump voters while eliciting a vast turnout among Millennials? Maybe Warren is the most electable because she’s as passionate as Bernie but more substantive and less radical, and she’ll inspire women as well? Maybe Harris is the most electable because she can replicate Obama’s massive African American numbers while pivoting to the center in a way white candidates can’t. Maybe Booker is the most electable because his message is as positive and unifying as O’Rourke’s, but he’ll do better among African Americans, and his unabashed religiosity will prove a secret weapon with evangelicals.

All these narratives are superficially plausible, and all of them could be nonsense. No one knows. And by embracing some while dismissing others, journalists—sometimes unwittingly—create a double standard for evaluating candidates. It’s fine that O’Rourke is less substantive than Warren, political handicappers imply, because he’s better able to beat Trump, which is what matters most. Let’s not credit Sanders for opposing the Iraq War, which Biden supported, because it’s better to nominate a more hawkish Democrat who can win than a dove who will lose.

The irony is that many political commentators think it’s easier to have an informed opinion about electability than about policy. It’s actually harder. If you want to know which candidate was correct about deregulation or the Iraq War, or whose health-care plan will cover the most people at the lowest cost, you can talk to experts, assemble facts, and come to a reasonable conclusion. Deciding which candidate can best beat Trump is more like looking at someone’s zodiac sign and predicting his or her future. It may be a fun hobby, but it’s a distraction from useful work.

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 13:34 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Ben trouwens wel geïnspireerd geraakt door Pete Buttigieg. Beetje een nerdy man met een rare naam maar hij zegt wel hele rake dingen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 15:06 schreef Vader_Aardbei het volgende:
Wat ik een tijdje geleden al zei maar nu vrijwel zeker is: het Mueller onderzoek is afgelopen en straks zal blijken dat Trump niets verkeerd heeft gedaan.

Zelfs James Comey realiseert zich dat het een Nothing Burger is en neemt afstand.

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 15:06 schreef Vader_Aardbei het volgende:
Wat ik een tijdje geleden al zei maar nu vrijwel zeker is: het Mueller onderzoek is afgelopen en straks zal blijken dat Trump niets verkeerd heeft gedaan.

Zelfs James Comey realiseert zich dat het een Nothing Burger is en neemt afstand.

[ afbeelding ]

twitter:

brithume twitterde op vrijdag 22-03-2019 om 15:19:52 President Trump’s attacks on the late John McCain mark the first time in memory where a President has picked a fight with a dead man and lost. McCain was no saint, but he was a brave and patriotic man. Hitting him when he can’t hit back is repellent. reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 15:06 schreef Vader_Aardbei het volgende:
Wat ik een tijdje geleden al zei maar nu vrijwel zeker is: het Mueller onderzoek is afgelopen en straks zal blijken dat Trump niets verkeerd heeft gedaan.

Zelfs James Comey realiseert zich dat het een Nothing Burger is en neemt afstand.

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 16:21 schreef Ulx het volgende:
https://www.nytimes.com/2(...)ps://t.co/tgrW9vxkNk


Onder de auteurs van het economische rapport aan Trump bevinden zich grootheden als P. Parker, J. Snow, J. The Hutt en B. Wayne.

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 13:34 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Ben trouwens wel geïnspireerd geraakt door Pete Buttigieg. Beetje een nerdy man met een rare naam maar hij zegt wel hele rake dingen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 17:04 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Dat is wel zo'n beetje het minst interessante in de column.

twitter:

eelcobvr twitterde op woensdag 20-03-2019 om 08:57:38 Hier betoogt Nate Silver dat vroege peilingen wel degelijk iets zeggen: https://t.co/G2tXLJ2p2o reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 13:05 schreef EipNiC het volgende:

[..]

Blijkbaar niet afdoende.

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 17:23 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Geeft ons dan duiding, oh Monolith-die-dingen-weet.

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 15:54 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Goed punt.

twitter:

brithume twitterde op vrijdag 22-03-2019 om 15:19:52 President Trump’s attacks on the late John McCain mark the first time in memory where a President has picked a fight with a dead man and lost. McCain was no saint, but he was a brave and patriotic man. Hitting him when he can’t hit back is repellent. reageer retweet

Trump kan niet eens een ruzie met een dode winnen. Dan ben je wel echt een faalhaas van epische proporties.

twitter:

mcpli twitterde op vrijdag 22-03-2019 om 15:18:22 On Tuesday, partisan gerrymandering returns to SCOTUS when the high court hears arguments in cases challenging North Carolina's and Maryland's congressional maps. A thread. #fairmaps #ncpol 1/ reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 17:56 schreef Beathoven het volgende:

[..]

Ik vraag me af tot in hoeverre Raegan al wat aan het dementeren was tijdens zn regeerperiode maar Trump raakt hiermee wel nieuwe dieptepunten. Als hij straks in de bloembakken begint te pissen dan zal ik 't hem maar vergeven dat hij zich als een idioot presenteert.

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 16:01 schreef EipNiC het volgende:

[..]

''Wel grappig'' De enige kandidaat die het over het meest prangende en alles aantastende probleem heeft, en die is wel grappig. Nee, beperk je dan maar tot de Russia-Trump conspiracy theory. En schop dit topic dan ook gewoon definitief naar BNW.

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 17:21 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

Malteser afkomst die naam. Schijnt een shitload aan talen te kunnen spreken.

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 15:58 schreef Montov het volgende:

[..]

Je hebt de op-ed in de NYT niet gelezen en neemt conclusies over van je echokamer. Wees eens kritisch op je media consumptie.