DEMOCRATIC DEBATE: PLAY BY PLAY AND OPINION

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

I watched the debates with as little prejudice and bias as possible. These are my gut reactions as a straight, White, married, 36 years old, religiously unaffiliated, politically independent, male.

20 Candidates. 10 each night. 60 seconds to answer. 30 seconds to follow up.

NIGHT ONE…

ECONOMY:

Elizabeth Warren is up first. She is asked if her economic policies (which are heavily progressive) are appropriate at a time when 70% of country says the economy is up. She makes the point that the economy is top heavy and is working great for the 1%. Trickle-down is not happening. She is very eloquent and on-point.

Amy Klobuchar: She is asked if her policies are too idealistic. She talks about how Trump and his supporters gloat about the economy, but it betrays the bigger picture of student debts and low wages. She talks about making Community College free and getting help for everyone that isn’t in the top 1%. Says ifBillionaires can pay off their yachts (which I assume is speaking about the big bank bailouts), we can pay off Student Debts.

—Already, I can tell that the tone of this debate is going to be “boring” (as Eric Trump tweeted apparently) and policy heavy. This seems like it will be the Democratic position to contrast Trump: less rhetoric and circus theatrics, more substance.

Beto O’Rourke: “This economy has to work for everyone.” Betospeaks Spanish during his time which feels a bit forced (he clearly planned this with his campaign and it feels political in nature). O’Rourke speaks to the big bank bailout of trillions to the 1% (which happened under Bush AND Obama, we must remember – so this talking point which is now 3/3 of the first candidates is an interesting strategy seeing as how it could be at least politically attached to Obama, if not factually).

Cory Booker: Talks about monopolies and corporate consolidation. Says dignity is being stripped from labor. Small businesses can’t compete. Wants aggressive policies in the Ag(riculture) sector to spur the economy. He lives in “black and brown” communities that are not being helped by any current policies of this administration. Says “Haliburton and Amazon pay nothing in taxes” and we need to change that. In regards toanti-Trust laws, he will appoint the judges that will rule appropriately. Says corporate power is growing and that Citizens United has been very bad in regards to furthering government corruption.

Warren response about “Picking winners and losers” by Booker: The laws are in place already, it’s the courage to take on the giants that is needed. “I want to return the government to the people.” Warren is very believable in her appeal to voters that want the government to fight back against the big corporations and work for the everyman.

Julian Castro: “I know what it’s like to struggle.” Speaks to his difficult upbringing. Talks about MOMS. It starts in the home. He would pass the equal rights amendment. Women deserve equal pay for equal work. “If we want to be the most prosperous nation in the 21st century, we need to make sure women are paid what they deserve.” Short and sweet.

Tulsi Gabbard: Enlisted in National Guard after 9/11. She still serves as a Major. She is making these points rather than answering the question (which was about Equal Pay). “Our leaders have failed us, leading us from one regime change to the next.” Wants to take money from fighting endless wars into healthcare, green energy, and protecting environment. Her answer is so short and to the point that there is an awkward pause after she finishes and the moderators scramble to get to the next question (she is very impressive in her content, but robotic/uninspiring in her delivery).

Bill De Blasio: Talks about NYC policy that has made a difference in income inequality: raising benefits, raising income, pre-K for all, more sick days, etc. The battle for the Heart and Soul of the party – yes, we are supposed to be for the people: free college, 70% tax rate on wealthy, supposed to break up big corporations when they aren’t serving our Democracy. We have to be strong, aggressive, progressive… in NYC, we have proven we can do that. There is plenty of money in this world, it’s just in the wrong hands.

John Delaney: We must do real things to help American people and workers. A real wage. Double the tax credit. Raise minimum wage. Paid family leave. Says he’s very different, an entrepreneur who has spent his whole career helping 5,000 small businesses.

Jay Inslee: I’m a Governor. We need Unions. That’s how we increase wages. CEO of McDonald’s makes 2,100x the people who work there. I will put people to work in the jobs of the present and the future. Wind Turbines don’t cause cancer, they cause jobs. America needs to lead the world.

Tim Ryan: Can you promise Manufacturing jobs will come back? Trump told Ohians not to sell their houses and Ryan speaks to all of the Ohio jobs being shipped out to Mexico and China. Trump’s promises were hollow and manufacturing has NOT come back. Top 1% controls 90% of wealth while wages for everyone have not gone up since the 70s.

—After hearing from every candidate, Warren and Gabbard stick out the most as the best candidates. They “appear presidential” (whatever that means… it’s not so much hair/attire/looks so much as confidence, projection, and rhetoric).

Warren: We have let giant corporations do whatever they want for decades now. And their entire focus is profit. If they can save a dollar shipping jobs to Mexico or China, they will. They have no loyalty to USA. We need to go tenfold on R&D for Green Energy. Then corporations can use that tech, but they have to use it in America (similar to NASA developing space tech and businesses using it). Very confident on American ability to bring back jobs and tech.

GENERAL QUESTION: Who would abolish employer health insurance in favor of a government-run plan? Only Warren and De Blasio raise hands.

HEALTHCARE:

Klobuchar: Obama wanted public option, that’s bold. But it would kick Americans off health insurance. We need to tackle pharmaceuticals first. Trump said he’d bring down prices and prices have gone up 2x. He gave 100 billion to pharmaceuticals. “That’s what we call all foam and no beer where I come from.” (chuckles from crowd, I personally cringe at these comedic deliveries from non-comedians). “Pharma thinks they own Washington. Well they don’t own me.”

Warren: “I’m with Bernie on Medicare-For-All.” Medical Bills are biggest reason people go broke. And that’s for people WITH insurance. Medical Companies want to get every dollar they can. They continually fight with patients to squeeze money out of them with no regard to for health or family situations. Medicare-For-All solves this. Health Care is a basic human right and I will fight for it.

Beto: “My goal is to ensure that every American is well enough to live up to their full potential.” Tells a story about a Texas man who will be dead before age of 40 because he doesn’t have healthcare. He wants to get to get to a Public Option for all as soon as possible. County Jail is the biggest healthcare provider. Adds that Women’s Healthcare is essential.

De Blasio: First to chime in out of turn calling out Beto for not acknowledging that Private Insurance isn’t working.

John Delaney: We can’t support bills that will have every hospital close. We can’t just take away Private Insurance altogether. Let’s add an option, not take away options (Medicare Option, I believe he’s talking about).

—All the Democrats acknowledge Healthcare is broken, but only two want Medicare for All to replace private insurance immediately, while everyone else wants to add the option of italong with the private option.

Gabbard: “We are talking about this in the wrong way.” What we should talk about is our objective: Medicare For All. If you look at other countries that have Medicare for All, private sector still plays into it (maybe it’s enhanced care).

Booker: If you don’t have healthcare, you won’t succeed in school, occupation, and at home.

Warren: Insurance Companies last year sucked $23 Billion dollars in profit out of the system and that doesn’t count lobbying and bonuses. There is a lobby that is paying to keep insurance the way it is.

Jay Inslee: It should not be an option to deny women coverage for their right of choice. “I’m the only candidate who has passed laws to ensure this and I’ve passed laws for the public health option as well.”

Klobuchar: There are three women who have fought pretty hard for a woman’s right to choose. The idea is that you use Medicare and Medicaid without insurance and 23 million people will get covered.

Castro: My plan would cover abortion. “I believe in reproductive justice.” First to bring up Trans Women. Talks about Missouri and Georgia assaulting Pro-Choice. Would appoint the judges that protect these rights (although probably every candidate would).

Warren: (Getting a lot of time) Would ensure women have access to EVERYTHING: abortion, birth control, health care. Roe v. Wade is not enough. State after state has undermined the courts. Most of America supports the Court Decision, it needs to be Federal Law.

Booker: (on Drugs). Pharma Companies should be held criminally liable. Will not take contributions from any Pharma Execs or Lobbies because they are a big part of the opioid crisis.

Beto: Pharma Companies have destroyed the country and have no accountability. His administration will hold criminals accountable and get people the help they need.

—Break. So far, I am still most impressed with Warren (who is taking over) and Gabbard. Everyone else has underwhelmed.

IMMIGRATION:

Castro: First candidate to put forward a comprehensive immigration plan. Watching images of immigrants in these conditions (including the two who passed away trying to swim across the border) is sad, but it should also piss us off. He wants a pathway to citizenship. We need a Marshall Plan so people can find safety at home instead of coming to US to seek it.

Booker: Also speaks Spanish to answer. Does not seemed contrived this time since it’s addressing the immediate issue at hand (Beto’s response earlier was to a general question). Wants to pass DACA.

Castro: (Again) “My plan also gets rid of criminalizing desperation. It should be a civil violation.” Section 1325 is justified to separate from their families. Every candidate should support its repeal.

Booker: (Again) Separation from children and family isn’t just at the border. ICE is going into homes creating fear.

De Blasio: As a father, every American should say: “That photo of that child is not America.” We aren’t being honest about the division that is being fomented in this country. Immigrants have NOT created the problems we have. It’s the CORPORATIONS, not the IMMIGRANTS.

This was the first big moment of the night in terms of an emotional plea that is also on message with Democratic Party. De Blasio is trying to make the claim that he knows the party platform.

Beto: We would spare no expense to bring families back together. We would not detain any families fleeing violence. We would implement a family care policy. Free dreamers by making them US Citizens. Invest in Central America so there’s no reason to make the journey.

Castro: Section 1325 is the reason all of these problems are happening. Calls out O’Rourke and says he needs to end this policy (he won’t).

Beto: I introduced legislation to help…

Castro: I’m only talking about this Section.

Beto: We need to rewrite immigration laws.

Castro: It’s just this one law that is the problem. We need to end it and families won’t be separated.

—Castro and Beto are fighting pretty heavily.

Klobuchar: “Immigrants do not diminish America, they are America.” Agrees with Beto, that we have to have some provisions in place for people who violate the law (Section 1325 is meant to help fight “bad actors,” but it’s being abused by Trump administration). This President has gone backwards at a time when we need immigrants.

Ryan: Crime or Civil Offense to cross the border? Agrees with Castro: it’s already established in law to bring illegal items across the border. No need to repeat. “If you go to Guantanamo Bay, there are terrorists who are getting better care than the children at the border.” Why are we not letting Doctors and Nurses go to the border?

—The Trump/Miler policy has been proven to be intentionally cruel to discourage immigration.

Booker: Civil vs. Criminal when it comes to illegal immigration. “Our country has made so many mistakes by criminalizing things: Addiction, Mental Illness, Immigration…” We have a surge at the border with Trump’s policies. We should examine why people come here in the first place.

WHAT WILL YOU DO ON DAY ONE? NO ONE HAS ANSWERED QUESTION:

Inslee: Prevent laws that prevent local Police from turning into ICE Agents. Trump threatened me by saying he’d send refugees. That’s an American tradition (immigrants), not a threat.

IRAN:

Booker: Trump messed up taking us out of Iran deal, now they are threatening. We need to get back into the deal. “When I am President, I will do the best I can to make a better deal with Iran.”

Klobuchar: Obama deal was imperfect, but a good deal. Trump told us we’d get a better deal if we pulled out. Now we are a month away from Iranians blowing the cap on uranium enrichment. I’d negotiate our way back into the agreement and not give unlimited leverage to China and Russia.

—Klobuchar is definitely making her case. Maybe it’s the zeitgeist, but the women are owning this debate.

Gabbard: “Let’s deal with the situation where we are. This chicken-hawk administration has lead us to the brink of war with Iran.” War with Iran would be far more devastating than anything we’ve seen with Iraq. This would turn into a regional war. We have to stand up and say, “No war with Iran.”  Her red line would be military action against our troops. It can’t be just a light spark that provokes the US into war.

—Gabbard is on point with military issues. Her military experience is clutch.

Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd are now moderating.

PARKLAND FLORIDA / GUN CONTROL:

Warren: When asked about the hundreds of millions of guns out there, Elizabeth Warren talks about 100 town halls and the single hardest question she got was: “When you’re president, how are you going to keep us safe? 7 Children will die today. Not just for mass shootings. They’ll die on sidewalks, playgrounds, people’s backyards… gun violence is a national health emergency in this country.” She suggests universal background checks, more research (and it should be noted that the NRA suppresses gun research that is unfavorable).

Booker: When asked about the buyback program, he first talks about gunshots in his neighborhood. In his neighborhood, seven people were shot last week. Someone he knows was killed with an assault rifle last year. It’s not a policy issue for most Americans, it’s an emergency.

“I’m tired. I’m tired of thoughts and prayers.”

Castro: On active shooter drills and the problem getting worse, Castro talks about being Dad of a 10-year-old girl and the worst thing is thinking your child is safe this not being the case. Castro believes that the White House, Senate, and House will be Democratic in 2021 and the legislation will pass.

Ryan: We need trauma-based care as well as policy.

Beto: When asked about Texans who are single-issue on gun control, Beto talks about all the obvious legislation that are NOT “Democrats coming for your guns.” Young people are changing the laws by organizing.

Klobuchar: Everyone has failed until the kids started talking about it.

Booker: If you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to own a firearm. Connecticut did it and saw a 40% drop in gun violence and a 15% drop in suicides. In terms of getting anything done, the candidate needs to win 50 votes in the Senate to balance the Supreme Court and start passing an aggressive agenda.

De Blasio: We need a different approach to police in America. Talks about his black son, Dante. Talks about having discussions about race and police. If the Democratic would stop acting like the party of the elites, then they could pressure the working class in red states to support them.

BIPARTISANSHIP:

Warren: On having a plan for Mitch McConnell… “I do.” Democracy means the will of the people matters. Congress has made the country work better for lobbyists and big corporations. The fight starts in the White House and everyone energized in 2020 stays on the front lines in 2021. We must make Congress reflect the will of the people.

Delaney: On doing everything in a bipartisan manner, when asked how, he says we must do everything in a bipartisan manner.

Booker: How to work with McConnell? Talks about building coalitions on criminal justice reform when nobody said they could.

CLIMATE CHANGE:

Inslay: Staked campaign on Climate Change. To start, take away filibuster from Mitch McConnell. Who is gonna make Climate Change the first priority?

Beto: Bring everyone into the solutions and the challenges.

Castro: Puerto Rico was one of his first visits. Everyone should be taken care of.

Delaney: We have a perception problem with the Democratic party. We are not connecting to the people in the middle of the country.

—It’s great that Delaney has identified something that’s fairly obvious, but what is he going to do to make this a “Working Class Party?”

DIVERSITY: 

Gabbard: Apologized to the LGBTQ community when she started her campaign. Why should they trust her now? She says nobody on any level of government should be allowed to tell people who they can and can’t love. When she was young, she held views she no longer holds. She served with LGBTQ service members.

Booker: Talks about LGBTQ Americans and suicides, health issues.

Klobuchar: On what she has done for Black and Latino voters, Klobuchar says her entire career has been devoted to better lives for those people. Better schools, better jobs for minorities. Will make sure everyone can vote. Will work on criminal justice reform.

Castro: Talks about a white terrorist who was apprehended without harm (Dylan Roof), but Eric Garner and others were murdered by police without even committing a crime.

FOREIGN POLICY: 

Beto: We need a united front to achieve our foreign policy aims.

De Blasio: We need the War Powers Act to be respected. President cannot act unilaterally. Even in a humanitarian crisis, we need congressional approval. We learned the lesson in Vietnam that we seem to have forgotten.

Ryan: 12 of 17 years in Congress, has sat on Armed Services Committee. Lesson learned is that we “have to stay engaged.” The question was why are we in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Ryan is railing on Trump’s inability to fill posts.

Gabbard: Makes fun of Ryan. “Are you gonna tell the soldiers, ‘we just have to be engaged?’” She says we need to bring our troops home.

Gabbard and Ryan are arguing about terrorism, Al Quida, and Taliban. Ryan seems hysterical.

Greatest GeoPolitical Threat:

Delaney: China, Nuclear Weapons

Inslay: Donald Trump

Gabbard: Nuclear War

Klobuchar: Iran

Beto: Climate Change

Warren: Climate Change

Booker: Nuclear Proliferation and Climate Change

Castro: China and Climate Change

Ryan: China (stutters on response)

De Blasio: Russia for messing with our Democracy.

MUELLER: 

Beto: Would pursue action against Trump after he leaves office to prove that nobody is above the law. We must begin impeachment now. His DOJ would investigate if impeachment is not pursued.

Delaney: Trump is not above the law. Supports Pelosi’s decisions to not impeach yet. “This President who is lawless should not be above the law.” But does not think the American people care about this issue.

Klobuchar: We must deal with Russia.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

Delaney: On a mission to find the America that has been lost.

De Blasio: It matters that we nominate a candidate who raised the minimum wage to $15, passed universal healthcare, and given early childcare for free.

Inslee: Makes emotional appeal about the Climate Crisis. Claims to be the only candidate to make this the top priority.

Ryan: Ready to play offense. The forgotten Americans need to be heard.

Gabbard: This Government is of, by, and for the rich and powerful. Our Government will usher in the new century with justice, prosperity, and peace for all.

Castro: Speaking Spanish on this stage shows the progress of our country. Will work hard for good health care, good job opportunities, and a good education.

Klobuchar: Listens to people and gets things done. Can win and beat Donald Trump. Has won in reddest of districts. Not the establishment party candidate.

Booker: Has taken on bullies and won, not by showing the worst of who we are, but by being our best.

Beto: Can’t return to the same old approach. This is our moment.

Warren: Born and raised in Oklahoma. Dreamed of being a public school teacher, but her family didn’t have money. But $50 a semester commuter college is what gave her the chance that opened her life. She believes we can make this country, government, economy work for everyone.

 

NIGHT TWO…

HEALTH CARE:

Bernie Sanders up first:

Sanders: On if taxes will go up for the middle class with his health care plans, Sanders goes into his usual rhetoric which he has pioneered. Healthcare for All, Single Payer System. He says the vast majority of the country will pay vastly less than they are now in an SPS. He also loops in eliminating student debt and paying for it by taxing Wall Street. When pressed on if he’ll raise taxes on Middle Class, he says essentially “Yes, but far less in Health Care costs.”

Biden: “Donald Trump thinks Wall Street built America. Working Class Americans built America.” Says we need to return dignity to the Middle Class. Wants to close tax loopholes and eliminate Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy.

—Sanders and Biden look very old in high definition.

Harris: Comes on strong when asked about “How are we gonna pay for it?” by talking about how nobody asked this question when Trump and GOP passed tax cuts for the rich. Single Payer. Anyone under $100,000 should get $500 tax credit a month and she wants to repeal the Trump Tax cuts.

John Hickenlooper: “If we don’t define very clearly that we are NOT socialists, Republicans will label us socialists.” He believes Healthcare if a right, not a privilege, but you can’t eliminate Health Insurance for millions and millions right away. Touts his state’s progressive achievements. “I’ve done what everyone else up here is talking about doing.”

Sanders: On a “Socialist” not being able to defeat Trump… dodges question and talks about being 10 points up on Trump because he is a liar, a racist, and has not even fulfilled his campaign promises. “We beat Trump by exposing him for the fraud that he is.”

Kirsten Gillibrand: There’s a difference between capitalism and greed. When ending Gun Violence, it’s the greed of NRA that makes progress impossible. It’s the greed of the drug companies when we want to change prices or get Healthcare for All. We just don’t want corrupted capitalism.

Michael Bennet: Agrees with Bernie on challenges. 40 years with no economic growth. Disagrees with Medicare For All. We need to get to Universal Healthcare, but we should do it by starting with the Public Option first and let people decide.

Gillibrand cuts in and is shut down.

Pete Buttigieg: Does not believe in free college entirely. It does not make sense for working-class families to subsidize rich kids to go to college. It should be affordable to go to college, it should also be affordable to not go to college, we should raise the minimum wage.

Andrew Yang: Asked on how to pay a universal basic income, says a Value Added Tax would add $800 Billion, along with taxing companies like Amazon properly who don’t pay anything. Technology is automating away millions and millions of jobs and AI/Automation/Robots are going to eventually take away millions more job.

Eric Swalwell: “We must value our schools, invest in America’s communities.” Takes a heavy shot at Joe Biden who he quotes as saying “We must pass the torch to a younger generation,” years ago.

Biden fires back: “I’m holding onto that torch.”

The stage erupts – everyone wants to respond to this. It’s chaos. This is the problem with 10 candidates on stage.

Sanders is loudest and gets in: “Who has the guts to take on Wall Street, to take on Pharma, etc.”

Then more loud shouting.

Harris comes in strong: “America doesn’t want to witness a food fight, they want to know how to put food on their table.”

Harris: How are you measuring this economy? The stock market? Most Americans don’t own stocks. Job numbers? People are working 2-3 jobs and suffering for it! They are not happy.

Asks the same question about abolishing private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan.

3 Candidates raise their hands.

Gillibrand: “I ran on Medicare for All and I won.” Single Payer is a right, not a privilege. The fastest way there is by competing with private insurers. If the Government can provide a better option, people will leave the private option.

Buttigieg: How do you explain how you’re getting from here to there. “Medicare for all who want it.” If we are right, then it will be more efficient and less expensive. But let’s remember, in countries that have outright socialized medicine, there is still a private sector. “This is personal to my father was terminally ill.”

Biden: Also says, “This is personal to me.” Talks about his personal healthcare issues and his family’s. Thinks we should build on Obamacare.

—Buttigieg is strong, Harris is strong. Sanders is the same as the last 30 years which is an enormous achievement. He absolutely speaks about the moral and substantive deficiency of corporatized medicine.

Sanders: I find it hard to believe that every major country in the world has figured it out, but we can’t. All insurance and healthcare companies today are trying to make billions. We are paying the highest costs in the world for prescription drugs while pharma makes billions.

Marianne Williamson: We can’t beat Donald Trump by having plans. We have to go deeper. Says we only talk about sickness after people are sick, not before. It has to do with chemical policies, environmental, food, drug, etc.

Bennet: Families should have the choice of Public Option. Talks about having prostate cancer. Sanders will ban all other health insurance under his “Medicare For All” except cosmetic surgery.

Sanders: Doesn’t directly respond to Bennet’s criticism.

Harris: Tells the story of parents who go to emergency rooms and know their child will possibly die, but they can’t walk through the doors or they will be bankrupt.

More yelling.

Another Healthcare Question:

Raise your hand if your government would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.

Everyone raises their hand.

Why?

Buttiegieg: Our country is healthy when everyone is healthy. We shouldn’t have 11,000,000 undocumented citizens. American people want them to have a path to citizenship so they can pay into the system and receive its benefits. Washington can’t seem to deliver on what the American people want.

Biden: You cannot let people who are sick go uncovered, it has to be taken care of. It’s the humane thing to do.

First break.

It’s a tough call so far. Swalwell, Gillibrand, Yang, Bennett, and Williamson are getting buried.

IMMIGRATION:

Harris: Asked what specific thing she would do about the people coming to the USA for asylum, she would start with reinstating DACA status and protection. She would extend protections for the parents. Undocumented people who are veterans will be taken care of. “I will release children from cages. I will shut down detention centers.” She will use the President’s microphone, “Her microphone,” for good. Trump does not reflect our values.

—Harris was super strong on this issue.

Hickenlooper: Day 1, what does he do? Starts by not answering the question, but talks about how tragic it is that the Federal Government is kidnapping people essentially. Then talks about putting facilities in place to make sure women and children are taken care of at the border.

Williamson: It is kidnapping. This is child abuse. Both are a crime. If your government does it, that doesn’t make it less of a crime. What President Trump has done is not only attacked these children and demonized these immigrants, he has attacked America’s identity at its core.

Gillibrand: Talks about all the horrible things Trump has done. To solve, says similar things: DACA back in, appoint immigration-friendly judges. Stop spending money on for-profit prisons.

Should it be civil offense instead of a federal crime?

Buttigieg: Republican party likes to cloak itself in the language of Religion. Talks about the hypocrisy of Republicans. “God would smile at putting kids in cages?” Mayor Pete gets an enormous response on talking about GOP Religious BS.

Biden: Would put billions in help toward the region (Central America). During term, Obama/Biden focused on issue and it worked. $740 Million towards helping this problem. No more children separation. Ever.

Obama/Biden administration deported more than 3 Million Americans.

Biden: We shouldn’t be locking people up. We should be examining why they are leaving in the first place.

Sanders: “I agree with a lot of what Kamala said.” Honduras has massive corruption. We’ve got to invite the leaders of Central American countries and work with them.

Swalwell: If someone’s only offense is not having proper documents, they should not be deported. They can still be a part of this great country.

Harris: Absolutely do not deport these people. Harris disagreed with Obama Administration on very few things, this was one. As Attorney General of California, she said that Sheriffs did not have to comply with detainers and only act in the interest of public safety.

TRADE: 

Starts with China. Talks about them manipulating currency.

Bennet: Biggest national security issue is Russia, not China. But on China, President is right to push back on China, but he’s done it the wrong way. Also addresses border issue and talks about his Mom being separated in Poland during Holocaust.

Bennet comes on strong here, but it’s strange because the topic has passed (another problem with the many candidates).

Yang: Agrees that Russia is greatest geopolitical threat because they have been hacking our elections and “Laughing their asses off” about it. China is a huge problem because of stealing intellectual property and pirating. “We need to crack down on Chinese malfeasance in the relationship.”

Buttigieg: The Chinese challenge is a serious one. They are using technology for the perfection of dictatorship. Tariffs aren’t going to solve this. China is about to run circles around us on Artificial Intelligence. The biggest thing we need to do is invest in our own industrial and technological competitiveness.

Buttigieg gets a huge round of applause.

RACE: 

Buttigieg: Asked about police shootings and lack of black police officers. Takes full responsibility for the problems in South Bend right now. Talks about the bigger racial divides and trying to ensure that in the future, white and black people react the same to seeing a police officer.

Hickenlooper: Talks about actual reforms in Colorado that worked for police accountability.

Swalwell tells Buttigieg he should have fired the Chief because he’s the Mayor.

Williamson: The average American is not a racist, but the average American is woefully ignorant of racist issues.

Harris: Owns the issue on race. “A neighbor told her kids they couldn’t play with us because we were black.” Tells Biden she does not believe he is a racist and commends him for trying to find common ground. But it was hurtful to hear him talk positively about two Senators who built their reputations on being racists. This subject is not an intellectual subject. Police Officers should have body cameras on and keep them on.

—Coming into the debate, I was not impressed with Harris in terms of excitement and rhetoric. She has won me over as a completely viable candidate here.

Biden responds very weakly, trying to tout his accomplishments.

Harris is on fire attacking Biden. Biden is on his heels.

DIVERSITY: 

Sanders: Democrats lead on diversity, but we should not focus on this issue as much as fighting special interests

Gillibrand and Bennet do not seem in control although they are sound in their policy and rhetorical mastery.

Bennet: On if gridlock will disappear. Says it will never disappear as long as Mitch McConnell is there.

Biden: Touts his record again. Talks about getting the bailout passed. Talks about bailing out the auto industry.

I used to really like Buttigieg and Harris, but now I like Harris/Buttigieg.

ABORTION: 

Sanders: Woman’s right to choose is a constitutional right. “I will never appoint anyone to Supreme Court that doesn’t defend Roe v. Wade.” Thinks we should rotate judges.

Gillibrand makes an emotional appeal to Women in this country and the Men who love them. She is tired of playing defense and thinks we should play offense. Touts her record on abortion. A little all over the place.

CLIMATE: 

Harris: “I don’t call it Climate Change, it’s a Climate Crisis.” Supports Green New Deal, Paris Agreement reentry. Trump is the greatest threat to national security.

Buttigieg: We must prevent Climate Change for getting worse. Carbon tax. Buttigieg had to use emergency procedures for flooding in Indiana. With the right kind of soil management, rural America can really be a part of the solution.

Hickenlooper: As a scientist, does not think Socialism is the solution. In Colorado, they’ve worked with the oil and gas industries and have improved the State’s climate situation. We can’t demonize businesses.

Biden: On cutting carbon emissions without Congress, does not answer the question, but talks about going to a fully electric vehicle future. Would invest $400 million in science research.

Sanders: This is a global issue. Scientists say we have 12 years before there is irreparable damage. We need to transform the country’s energy system to renewable, green energy.

Swalwell: “Pass the torch.”

Williamson: John Kennedy said, “We are gonna put a man on the moon.” Stay inclusive. Don’t try to win an election, try to

What’s the one issue that you get passed through?

Swalwell: Ending gun violence

Bennet: Climate Change

Gillibrand: Family Bill of Rights

Harris: Middle-Class Tax Cut

Sanders: Doesn’t take the bait, but says take on Special Interests.

Biden: Doesn’t agree with the premise, but defeat Donald Trump

Buttigieg: Take on Money in Politics

Yang: Universal Basic Income

Hickenlooper: Climate Change

Williamson: Make America a place where a girl can grow up.

GUNS: 

Swalwell: We have NRA on the ropes, but I’m the only candidate who wants buy backs for 15 Million Guns. He is impassioned here, but it’s still very political.

Sanders: Is quoted directly and said he was mischaracterized (audience laughs at this). Sanders touts his D- voting record from NRA. Wants comprehensive gun legislation. End gun show loopholes. Assault weapons are from the military, don’t belong on the streets.

Harris: Agrees with Swalwell and says there are many great ideas, but wants congress to put together a bill in the first 100 days or she will ban by executive order the sale of assault weapons. She talks about seeing more damage done by gun violence than anyone as a prosecutor.

Buttigieg: With military experience, asked about military families having a different take on this. “We trained on these kinds of weapons.” If guns made us safe, we’d have the safest country in the world, but it’s not the case. There are weapons that have no place in American cities in peace time.

Biden: “I got Brady Bill passed. I’m the only guy who’s beaten the NRA.” Biden is really on fire here. Talks about Smart Guns that require biometrics to fire.

FOREIGN POLICY: 

Bennet: We must restore Democracy at home. Our current President is corrupt. We must restore our relationships with allies.

On resetting relationships abroad:

Williamson: Would call European leaders.

Hickenlooper: China.

Yang: China. North Korea.

Buttigieg: Who knows who is most insulted by then.

Biden: NATO.

Sanders: United Nations.

Harris: NATO.

Gillibrand: Iran.

Bennet: European Alliance and every Latin American country.

Swalwell: Break up with Russia and make up with NATO.

Biden: asked about Iraq vote. Biden regrets the vote to go in, butwas responsible for getting troops out.

Biden stumbles a lot.

Sanders: Touts his opposition to Iraq war. Wants to solve issue with Saudis and Yemen. Prevent Iran War.

Chuck Todd is super condescending, by the way.

FINAL THOUGHTS: 

Swalwell: Can’t look to the past.

Williamson: Talks about Trump. Will only be beaten by someone who understands that Trump has harnessed fear for political purposes. Love will beat fear.

Bennet: Generational improvement is at risk, that’s why he’s running.

Hickenlooper: Touts Colorado achievements. Don’t need a big government to do big things. Socialism will reelect Trump.

Gillibrand: Appeals to Women who are currently under attack.

Yang: Beat Donald Trump by solving the problem that got him elected.

Harris: Talks about prosecuting the case against Trump. Wants to lead with dignity, honesty, and give the American family all that they need to prosper.

Buttigieg: Talks about his personal experience in war, marriage, and office. He wants his generation to solve climate change, racial equality, and endless war.

Sanders: Why has nothing changed? These are all good people on stage. Nothing WILL change unless we take on Wall Street, Pharma, Military Industrial Complex, and Fossil Fuel companies. 

Biden: Wants to restore the soul of our country.

 

SUMMARIES:

NIGHT ONE…

Elizabeth Warren: TOP 3. She’s got the confidence, the policies, the brains, and “looks Presidential.”

Amy Klobuchar: A less exciting Warren.

Beto O’Rourke: Lots of heart, but was clumsy and did not connect.

Cory Booker: Many good things to offer, but doesn’t have the “it” factor.

Castro: Incredibly authentic and likeable, but not tough enough(especially for Trump).

Gabbard: A contender. Needs more time to shine.

De Blasio: Great politician and very bright, but not a serious consideration.

Delaney: Forgettable.

Inslee: Forgettable.

Ryan: Forgettable.

NIGHT TWO… 

Swalwell: Seems to exist only to take out Biden.

Bennet: Forgettable.

Gillibrand: Not electable.

Harris: TOP 3. Very powerful performance. I came into these debates with her as my top pick for VP and now I see her as Presidential.

Sanders: Same Sanders as always. He’s truly someone you’d want to be President, but he seems to come from somewhere else that doesn’t line up with where we are, but where we want to be and this could be risky when this upcoming election needs a sure thing.

Biden: Seems out of it. Fitness is a real issue here.

Buttigieg: TOP 3. Very authentic and in command. He has his own tone in this race and it’s definitely unique, if not completely viable.

Yang: He is hilarious because he just doesn’t seem to care about the politics of it all. He’s stoically confident in his positions to the point of seeming like he doesn’t care if you agree with him or not because it won’t change the truth (which he knows). I like him a lot, but there’s no chance for this guy to win politically despite his vast intellect.

Hickenlooper: Forgettable.

Williamson: She is not representative of most Americans. She reeks of coastal elite. (She’s also incredibly brilliant, original, and entertaining…)

Critiquing the Candidates

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

Record, platform, and history do matter in the Democratic primary, and pointing out the differences does not harm the candidates, it strengthens the team. 

20 candidates have declared their run for the Democratic Party nomination for the 2020 presidential election. That’s a massive list filled with candidates from different backgrounds, different experiences, different platforms, and different visions for the future. Already, conversations and social media comment boards are filled with opinions on who the front-runner is, who has the ability to sustain a run, or who can unite the party. Also included in these discussions (arguments), is why one should never criticize another candidate by bringing up their record or any other unfriendly information for fear that Democrats will weaken their own eventual nominee. Comments such as, “Democrats eat their young again,” or “here we go again with Democrats badly damaging each other -save it for the general election!” Not only is this idea unfair, but it is misguided and will lead to a flawed nominee rather than a strengthened team.

In 2016, there were two candidates for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The argument that Sanders damaged Clinton and her ability to win in the general election has been proven false by many metrics. Hillary Clinton, largely, ran a campaign for the presidency that lacked substance and a clear vision. Mostly, she ran on a platform of ‘I’m not Trump.’ She failed to energize voters and create a high voter turnout, particularly among young people. Verified exit polling numbers show that the 18-29 year old demographic only created 13% of the electorate, with roughly 29% of the electorate coming from the demographics of 30-49 years old, 50-64 and 65+, however, all four of these demographics represent about the same population. Further, Bernie Sanders could have 1 created a contested convention and required super delegates to cast the final nominating votes, which many of his supporters probably would have liked considering the ethically questionable things the DNC did during the primary season, but he stood on stage and waited for five minutes for the cheering to subside before conceding the nomination to Hillary Clinton. He then campaigned on her behalf for the rest of the election, across the country and using his extensive network to urge his supporters to get out and cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton for president. During the 2016 primary season, there were no negative ads run by Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders, or vice versa. Neither of the Democratic candidates ever told their supporters to vote against the other should they win the nomination, or not to vote at all. But, what they did do is to expose the Democratic electorate to truths about each others history, past voting records and what they would do differently. The impetus was on the nominee to excite the Democratic base, get out the vote and create a platform that people would want to vote for. As has been well documented, Clinton failed to do this by running a moderate campaign with few specifics except that she would be better than Donald Trump. She did not see what was so exciting for much of the electorate in a candidate like Sanders or, in a much different way, Trump, and did not speak to these people about what they needed from the government. She avoided states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan because they have been reliably Democratic – and she lost 2⁄3 of them. She did not create a campaign that felt authentic to Americans who don’t believe politicians are authentic, and she lost because of it.

Bernie Sanders offered Hillary Clinton an opportunity to be in touch with the electorate, to answer for a voting record that many Americans viewed as questionable, and to create a platform for the general election that would appeal to further voting blocs than what Democrats have traditionally enjoyed. He offered her a stronger campaign, but she did not capitalize on it – this does not mean he harmed her campaign. Similarly, in the current primary season, the Democrats and their supporters, are going to expose the history, experience, voting records, policy stances and many other things about each other. While this absolutely must remain civil and rooted in fact, and there should be no negative ads run against each other, the sheer breadth of candidates is going to open additional voting blocs to the eventual nominee, should they have the vision and insight to see it and act on it. By listening to the voters, who they donate to, who they show up for at rallies, what policies they like and don’t like, and being able to speak to those voters in the general election, the nominee will be strengthened. By having their ‘dirty laundry’ aired out in the primary, they will have an opportunity to formulate an answer for it, evolve on unpopular stances, and adapt their platform to reach more voters. If a fair, honest and open election is held, no Democratic voter should be able to say the nominee does not represent them when all is said and done, and a formidable candidate will represent the team in the general election. 

1 “An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters ….” 9 Aug. 2018, https://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-vote rs/. Accessed 29 Apr. 2019. 

This article was originally published on 1 May 2019.

Mexico, Tariffs, and Accountability

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

Stop me if you heard this before: “POTUS makes a short notice international policy demand that is difficult to achieve and obtain measures of effectiveness or performance.”

As the deadline approaches, he claims a deal is reached and gets “credit for a political win.” Fast forward a few days and we learn the claimed deal was actually achieved months prior.

That’s where we are following the “new migrant policy deal” with Mexico. Our POTUS has claimed an achievement but the chances you’ve heard this is an old deal packaged as new are based on your political leanings only. In a day and time the initial story matters more than truth, it is now more important than ever that media (left, center and right) do the job they signed up for and push back whether it benefits their bias or not.

Take for instance the state of Michigan where a woman (Cathy Garnaat) attending a town hall by Republican Representative Justin Amash. For the first time, she heard there actually was negative information on Trump in the Mueller Report. Had she not been an Amash supporter, to this day (Deontay Wilder voice) she would not know this.

We exist in a bubble now more than ever. Funny in the Information Age, you can isolate yourself from information, but that is where we are. We are in a time where disinformation is standard practice and both parties as well as the media aids an administration that knows as long as they put their spin out first, the facts no longer matter.

My takeaway from the “new deal” with Mexico and the telling signs around it; this is how you sit and watch a system collapse when accountability and truth no longer matters. 

Similar Read: Newspeak

Legal Attack on Women’s Right to Choose (How Did We Get Here?)

by with 3 Comments CultureFeaturedPolitics

There is a calculated attack happening across this country. It’s an attack on women and their bodies. In the past month, we have seen state legislative bodies in Missouri, Ohio, and Georgia pass restrictive abortion laws. Last week we saw the Alabama Senate pass a ban and the Governor, Kay Ivey, signed it into law. Georgia’s Governor, Brian Kemp, also signed a controversial abortion bill, the heartbeat bill, into law. But the bill signed by Ivy in Alabama is currently the most restrictive in the country. The bill signed by Ivy bans abortions — with the exception of when the life of the mother is in jeopardy — in all circumstances. Stop and read that sentence again. If a woman is raped or a victim of incest, according to the Alabama law, she must carry it to full term.

This is extreme to say the least. This bill along with the others passed in Georgia, Ohio, and Missouri all seem to be aimed at one thing, getting their legal challenges heard at the Supreme Court. If legal challenges get to that level then Pandora’s box is open for the Roe v. Wade debate.  Ohio passed a fetal heartbeat bill, which would ban a woman from having an abortion once a heartbeat is detected. Some state legislative bodies are even calling it a 6-week ban, a time when some women may not even know they are pregnant. Georgia’s Governor Kemp signed something similar. In Tennessee, the legislative house passed a 6-week heartbeat bill, but it was defeated in the state Senate and sent to summer study, but is likely to be reintroduced next legislative season.

It would be convenient to rant about the way men are legislating over women’s bodies and giving them no chance to discuss or fight back against that legislation. Instead, I want to challenge you to relive a brief rundown of events that have gotten us to 2019 and the heartbeat bills. The breakdown is below:

  1. 2008-2009: America elects the first Black president, Barack Obama. 
  2. Early 2010: SCOTUS rules in ‘Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC)’ that political spending is a form of free speech that’s protected under the First Amendment. The controversial 5-4 decision effectively opened the door for corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money to support their chosen political candidates. Hate that your politicians are bought and sold by corporations? Blame this.
  3. Late 2010: Ahead of the midterms, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell vows to make President Obama a “one-term president” and Republicans declare a nationwide takeover of state legislatures. This begins the slow but steady Republican calculation to take over.
  4. 2010 Midterms: Thanks to the Citizens United case, Republicans flood the airwaves with political advertising to influence down-ballot elections. Republicans pick up 675 state legislative seats; swept several governorships, including Tennessee; and Republican control increased from 14 states to 26 state legislatures. They also take control of the U.S. House of Representatives, winning 58 seats.
  5. 2011: Now that Republicans effectively have the states on lock, states begin to enact strict voter ID laws, including Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and TN.
  6. 2012: President Obama is re-elected. All is well with the world because we now have the Affordable Care Act (aka: Obamacare) and our president is still Black.
  7. 2013: The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) guts the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the ‘Shelby County v. Holder’ case. As in, Shelby County, Alabama versus Attorney General Eric Holder. As in, the (same) Voting Rights Act championed by Civil Rights activists like Dr. Martin Luther King and Congressman John Lewis. The ruling basically said, nope racism doesn’t exist anymore so Southern states no longer need permission (i.e. “preclearance”) from the federal government to change their voting laws. The decision allowed 846 jurisdictions to close, move or change the availability of local polling places (mostly in predominantly African American counties) without federal oversight. There were also cuts to early voting and purges of voter rolls. Virtually all restrictions on voting after the ruling were by Republicans.
  8. 2014: Things begin to take a turn for the worst. Republicans continue their congressional takeover during the 2014 midterms. Republicans gained control of U.S. Senate and picked up more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
  9. Early 2016: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dies. His death begins the conversation about who will replace him and President Obama is granted option to choose. Obama chooses Merrick Garland, but both the Republican senators and Democratic senators have to vote on his nomination. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocks the nomination, claiming it’s too close to a presidential election so the next president should pick. 
  10. Late 2016: Donald Trump is elected president. Now Republicans are in control of the legislative branch and executive branch. Time to take over the judicial branch.
  11. 2017: Trump has his eye on the SCOTUS pick left vacant by Obama. 
  12. By nominating conservative judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. (Remember, elections have consequences, and in 2014, just 36.4% of eligible voters nationwide turned out in 2014 – the lowest since World War II—and Republicans gained control of the Senate, who confirms all federal judges.)
  13. Fast forward to 2018 and by now, 34 states have some form of voter ID laws. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announces his retirement. Trump nominates Brett Kavanagh as his replacement. Senate confirms Kavanaugh in October, shortly before the midterms, solidifying the bench as a reliably conservative 5-4 majority.

It’s now 2019 and Republicans control the state legislature in 31 states. That is over half the country. Congress is divided – Democrats took back the House in 2018, but Republicans still control the Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court.

What we are seeing play out today is a deliberate playbook, run by American Legislative Executive Council, also known as ALEC. This is the conservative right-wing organization that essentially creates all the bills and runs them through state legislative, congressional and Senate bodies across this country. They can’t do it unless our elected officials agree to push their proposed legislation. It’s interesting to note that ALEC will pay for members of Congress to attend some of their meetings where they discuss policy and legislation. Elected officials then go back to their respective seats and run their (ALEC) bills. Ultimately, the bills introduced by legislative branches across the country are so egregious and blatantly unconstitutional in an attempt to move the battle to friendly territory – the courts. And we see this happening with the abortion bills across the South. And in case you want even more examples let’s take another look at some recent history and see how there is calculation about the process of moving controversial legislation to the court system.

As soon as Trump became president he introduced the Muslim travel ban. A few judges across the country struck it down because they believed it was unconstitutional. It is now an active open court battle, but the dangerous part is Trump has already had two successful appointees to the Supreme Court and has been placing members on the Circuit Courts as well. This is important to note because states can fight these laws and challenge them, but if they end up in a court where a judge has been appointed by Trump or has a conservative view of the law then these abortion laws could be upheld along with other extreme laws coming out of Republican-led legislatures.

Trump has called for the separation of migrant families at the border. Again, this is something that judges are challenging and it’s heading to legal proceedings within the judicial system. The Secretary of Education, Betsy Devos, and her team are challenging public education with school vouchers. Legal proceedings will take place. Again, this will be headed to the courts. Voter registration is also under attack in states like Tennessee pushing the envelope and criminalizing the civic act. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing and guess where this will end up, in court. And let’s not forget about the 2020 census. The President is trying hard to remove some provisions on how Americans are counted, which will affect funding for states. There are lots of unknowns about the upcoming census, but one thing that will likely take place – a court battle.

When we talk about the calculated attack on women and their bodies, we have to look at how long this has been in play. The attack on abortion laws are systematically set up to eventually end up in the Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. We should be upset about abortion bans. Louisiana has a case before the Supreme Court and we should all pay close attention to its outcome. It’s a law that would force doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where an abortion is performed, a structure that those opposed to the law insist violates the “undue burden” notion. In 2016 the state of Texas had a similar bill struck down in court.

We will begin to see court cases pop up about abortion bans because as soon as they are signed, they will immediately be appealed. It will be up to state judges, first, to decide their fate and with the stacking of conservative judges across the country we can only hope women’s right to choose is just as important to them as forcing a woman to carry an unwanted baby that the government doesn’t want to financially support once it gets here. 

“Newspeak”

by with 2 Comments CultureFeaturedPolitics

How do we create dialogue on different planes of reality?

I recently had a conversation with someone who stands on the far opposite end of the political spectrum from me. When I presented a verifiable fact, the type of fact that one could argue the reason for the content of the fact, but not the occurrence of the fact itself, I was told that it did not happen. “Fake news,” I was informed. I didn’t quite know what to say, but responded with a simple, “no, it’s not.” From there we argued whether or not the fact actually happened, and this person’s veracity made me question my truth. So, I re-verified what I knew to be fact. I felt vindicated, but I also felt cheated – that I had allowed what could have been a productive conversation between two people with different beliefs to turn into an argument over the very validity of a fact. Has political discourse become nothing more than petty arguments over what a fact is?

George Orwell, in his increasingly prescient novel 1984, said, “not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.”

We currently have a president who has told more than 10,000 non-truths in 2.5 years. But, he is an expert at denying what we can see with our own eyes. By repeating the lie over and over, we begin to question what the truth is and, over time, our truths become different realities. When I speak about something I know is truth, there are others that believe the opposite is true. One of us believes 2+2=5, and as a result, the other loses the freedom that comes from saying 2+2=4. And while one can say they have verifiable evidence that 2+2=4 (the mathematics community, etc.), the believer that 2+2=5 has a traditionally reliable source telling them they are correct, the President of the United States. The very existence of eternal reality is being questioned. Arguing if what we know beyond a reasonable doubt as fact is true destroys all meaningful dialogue on the important topics we need to discuss as a nation.

So, how do we make sense of this and return to an age when we could discuss things productively? I believe that dialogue is important, and our lack of conversations of substance has badly harmed our country.

I think there are several things we can do to begin curing this and healing.

First, we absolutely must elect a president that holds truth to the highest standard. Someone who is honest even when it’s unpopular and hasn’t shifted their goal posts throughout their career. We will never be able to re-discover integrity, on both sides of the aisle, if we don’t demand our elected leaders possess it.

Second, we must demand that social media give us an accurate depiction of the world and political landscape so we can escape our individual bubbles. Social media is designed as an echo chamber in which we are presented with information that furthers our beliefs and shows us what we already believe, not as an actual provider of information and truth.

Third, we continue to talk, at any cost. Maybe we have to schedule these talks with others that actually want to have dialogue on important topics. Maybe we need to have a computer nearby to verify data we disagree on the validity of. Maybe we begin the conversation by finding common ground and building from there. There are very few people who believe small children should be separated from their mother, even if they don’t believe the mother and child have a right to be in this country. Are we able to get to meaningful conversation by first agreeing that children should not be kept in jails away from their family?

Fourth, we have to always remember that we have been presented with separate facts, and we do not share the same truths. The bubbles we live in are not of our own making, but they are real and we won’t pierce through them by getting frustrated or angry. So, we understand that we need the dialogue, our realities are different, but we have common ground. Then we verify facts and we demand the way we receive information is based in reality and our elected leaders are committed to the truth. Who knows, it could work.

One thing is for sure, if we do nothing, it will be a bright cold day in April as the clocks strike thirteen. 

Similar Read: Critiquing the Candidates

I Read The Mueller Report… Here is My Summary

by with 2 Comments FeaturedPolitics

I Read The Mueller Report, and Here is My Summary. 

You can read it too if you have the time:

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport

These are my summations and conclusions:

VOLUME 1 – Russian Meddling in the U.S. Election and Collusion with the Trump Campaign

p. 9 Mueller gave the report straight to the Attorney-General because he was ordered to do so by the original mandate. Even if, as evidenced in this memo: https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/12/20/read-bill-barrs-19-page-memo-ripping-mueller-probe/?slreturn=20190318182817, William Barr is politically compromised in favor of President Trump (a la Roy Cohn), Mueller did his job and followed the letter of the law rather than go rogue and release the unredacted report to Congress or the public. Because of decisions like this, and because Mueller did not make any brash decisions to prosecute Trump even with overwhelming evidence of obstruction (as I will summarize later), Mueller’s credibility is without blemish. This report is to be believed whether you love or hate Trump and his associates.

p. 9 The Russian government interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump get elected. This is not a conspiracy, this is a fact.

p. 9 The Special Counsel’s appointment was predicated on Intelligence gathered BEFORE the Steele Dossier. So there can no longer be discussion about this investigation being illicit on the grounds of wrongly obtained FISA warrants or anything else related to the Steele Dossier.

p. 9 The Special Counsel found that Trump Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor George Papadapoulos had met in May of 2016 with a Russian Government Agent to obtain disparaging information on Hillary Clinton and consequently started its investigation into Russian Involvement in the election in July of 2016.

p. 9 The Russian Government perceived that it could benefit from a Trump Presidency and worked to secure that outcome.

p. 10 Collusion is not a crime and the Special Counsel focused on “coordination” or “conspiracy” which would require an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government. It was established that the Russian Government helped Trump and that Trump enjoyed this help, but no evidence could be found to conclude that this was planned prior to the election.

p. 12 The Russians targeted Clinton, her campaign staff, and all her major supporters spreading false information about them as well as accurate information that was damning. These operations were carried out by the Internet Research Agency (IRA) which was funded by Russian Oligarch Yevgeniy Prigozhin (who is heavily tied to Russian President Vladimir Putin).

p. 12 The IRA started in 2014 with the goal of simply disrupting the American Electoral process and sow discord amongst the United States (the U.S. being Russia’s greatest obstacle to economic and political power). As Trump became a viable candidate in 2016, the IRA switched its objectives to helping him win after identifying him as incredibly favorable to Russian national interests.

p. 13 There were numerous communications between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government (which were lied about, consequently resulting in criminal indictments for many in the Trump Campaign), but the Special Counsel could not establish that there was a prior conspiracy to coordinate the many damaging releases of information by Wikileaks (via the IRA) to hurt Clinton and help Trump.

Again, The Russian Government identified Trump as the best candidate for their future success and worked to help him get elected. It could simply not be proven that Trump conspired with them towards their goal.

p. 13 Trump was trying to build Trump Tower Moscow in 2015 and lied about this during the campaign saying, “We have no business with Russia.” The deal would have been worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Trump.

p. 14 On August 2nd, 2016, Paul Manafort met with a Russian Agent to establish a plan for Russia to control Eastern Ukraine after Trump’s election (while the U.S. would essentially look the other way).

p. 14 Wikileaks (via IRA) released the Podesta emails hours after Trump’s damning “grab ‘em by the pussy” video to help the Trump Campaign change the national discourse from his behavior on that bus to the DNC’s unethical behavior during the primary (which ultimately hurt Bernie Sanders’ chances of winning). This was action taken by a foreign government to interfere in the U.S. election to help Trump win.

p. 15 After Trump was elected, dozens of Russian businessmen started reaching out to the Trump campaign to set up phone calls and meetings.

p. 15 Obama sanctioned Russia for interfering in the U.S. election and Michael Flynn personally requested to his Russian contacts not to escalate the situation because Trump would likely not continue these penalties against Russia.

p. 17 The Special Counsel found a great deal of evidence for contacts between the Trump Campaign and Russia, but not enough evidence to file criminal charges. So, there is evidence of collusion, just not enough to prosecute.

p. 17 Many members of the Trump campaign lied about their Russian contacts and this is why there are so many indictments and Trump campaign members currently serving jail time.

p. 18 The Republican Party changed its stance on Russia (from hostile to friendly) in the summer of 2016, but the Special Counsel could not conclude that this was related to a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia.

p. 18 MANY INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED PLEADED THE 5th, LIED IN THEIR TESTIMONY, OR WERE FOUND TO HAVE DELETED INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE INVESTIGATION. In other words, the Special Counsel is making decisions based on evidence it could find, but states in this report that a TON of information has been illegally discarded, including via the methods that many Republicans accuse the Clinton campaign of utilizing (acid washing email servers, destroying computers, etc.).

The Special Counsel therefore states that there could be more evidence that DOES prove conspiracy between Trump and the Russian Government.

p. 19-33 information on how the Special Counsel was formed, its jurisdiction, and information about the Russian hacking agency IRA. Most of this is redacted.

p. 33 The IRA spent $100,000 to purchase over 3,500 advertisements on Facebook that promoted groups supporting Trump and spreading false information about Clinton.

p. 34 IRA fake accounts reached tens of millions of people and attracted hundreds of thousands of followers.

p. 34 Before their deactivation in 2017, fake Russian accounts spreading propaganda in favor of Trump and false information about Hillary Clinton had reached an estimated 126 million people.

p. 35 U.S. Media regularly quoted the false information from these fake accounts as factual news, notably Sean Hannity, Michael McFaul, Roger Stone, and Michale Flynn Jr. who retweeted or cited these fake sources on network Television.

p. 37 The IRA organized hundreds of rallies via Facebook across the U.S. by having a Page administrator host the rally and then claim they could not personally attend, leaving the ground organization to the enthusiastic members of the group. The earliest evidence of this technique was a “confederate rally” in November 2015.

SIDE NOTE: Russia’s goal is to destabilize America (because America’s military presence prevents Russia from controlling major resources, trade routes, and strategic lands like the port of Crimea and Georgia which Russia annexed over the course of the Obama administration). But to accomplish this, Russia has studied the issues that sow the most division in America and have sought to fan the flames which already exist here – like racism, Confederate sympathizers, Nazi Sympathizers, the Ku Klux Klan, gun rights, Police protection vs. minority targeting, the Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice battle, anti-Immigrant sentiment, religious division, etc.

Trump’s voting base is almost entirely made up of single “wedge” issue voters who only need to hear one sentence: “I support your position” to gain their votes. This is an obviously successful political strategy that plays perfectly into the goals of the Russian Government: sowing divisiveness. It may be the case that Trump is not a witting agent of Russia (although the Mueller report does not rule that out), but he is at least an unwitting agent of their agenda to get America to fight amongst itself while Russia promotes its interests globally.

p. 39 The IRA recruited individuals it believed could help further its agenda of helping Trump and hurting Clinton. It focused on individuals who could “amplify” its content.

p. 41 The Special Counsel found two definite links between the IRA and the Trump Campaign, but none between IRA and Clinton.

p. 42-65 All the hacking techniques used by IRA including how they got the data and disseminated it via Guccifer 2.0, Wikileaks, and DC Leaks.

Also outlines what actions many Trump campaign officials undertook to defraud the United States and essentially commit treason by assisting Russia/IRA.

MANY REDACTIONS here.

p. 68 Trump Jr. was communicating directly with Wikileaks about damaging information.

p. 69 The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign actually did the hacking or released the damning information, but that they simply welcomed its effect on the election. The famous Don Jr. “I love it,” email when he heard about dirt on Hillary is not evidence of a criminal conspiracy.

p. 70-73 Because Clinton did use a private email server (which was reckless, but not criminal according to the FBI), her communications that she destroyed were vulnerable and in fact had been obtained by many foreign agencies. The Trump campaign was trying to find these emails (to use against her), but this is still part of “politics as usual,” and they did not specifically coordinate with a foreign government in this regard.

p. 74-120 Outlines all the links between Russia and the Trump campaign (there are many).

p. 74 Trump Tower Moscow details (it was a very real project for years).
TRUMP WAS WORKING ON GETTING THE TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW PROJECT DONE WELL INTO HIS CAMPAIGN WHEN HE LIED ABOUT “NO BUSINESS WITH RUSSIA.”

Was this because he was conspiring with Russian Oligarchs to win the election and then help Russian National interests? Or just because he knew it would look extremely bad if the President of the United States was doing business with a hostile nation?

Either way, the President lied repeatedly to the American people for reasons that are extremely impeachable (attempting to use the Office of the President for personal enrichment which violates the Emoluments Clause), or treasonous (conspiring with a hostile foreign power to defraud the United States).

p. 118 At the Trump Tower Meeting, Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner met with Russian Agents to discuss “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Trump Jr. later lied about this meeting after Trump instructed him to (this is public knowledge now after Trump’s lawyer released a letter stating that Trump helped to craft the letter pretending that the meeting was to discuss adoption).

p. 131 Russians at the Republican National Convention (notably Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak) got the Republican platformed changed from “lethal assistance to Ukraine in response to Russian aggression” to “appropriate assistance.”

p. 133 A Trump representative stopped the Republican National Convention Committee from drafting a platform amendment that was tougher on Russian aggression towards Ukraine. Support for NATO was also discouraged with Trump’s representative J.D. Gordon stating that “We don’t want to start World War III over that region.”

In other words, Trump’s position on Europe and Russia is to be hands off and let them figure it out. This isn’t necessarily wrong, but it goes against the US (and Republican Party) policy since probably World War II.

p. 137-152 Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, his assistant Rick Gates, and their criminal connections to Ukraine and Russia.

p. 153-181 After the election, multiple Russian Oligarchs, Businessmen, and Politicians began reaching out to the Trump Campaign through channels that had been pre-established (including the Russian embassy).

p. 182 The decisions to prosecute (or not prosecute).

p. 183 Trump Campaign did have contact with IRA, but did not do so with criminal intent.

p. 183 Many Russian hackers were charged with Computer-Intrusion Conspiracy.

p. 184-188 Almost all redacted.

p. 188 The Trump Tower meeting was not a conspiracy or a violation of campaign finance law because no evidence of any criminal intent was established. However, this meeting was lied about multiple times and has consequently yielded several obstruction of justice charges already against U.S. citizens.

p. 189 The report defines “conspiracy” (“collusion”) and says that Trump and his associates did many suspicious things, but they could not find evidence of a criminal coordination to defraud the United States. This does not mean there was NO evidence, just not enough to prosecute.

p. 190 Manafort and Gates illegally engaged in acts on behalf of a foreign principal (hence their prosecution and jail time).

p. 191 Michael Flynn also violated the same act. These men were essentially trying to sell out their country in the interest of helping other countries (for lots of money).

p. 192 There was no campaign finance law violations because the Trump Campaign never paid money for the “dirt” on Clinton and thus never unlawfully spent campaign finance money to help win the election.

p. 192-195 Essentially the June 9th 2016 Trump Tower Meeting was incredibly close to violating a Federal Law banning foreign assistance during campaigns, but the Special Counsel could not prosecute on the grounds that “recounting damning information that is historically accurate” does not constitute a “thing of value” (they then go on to define “thing of value” to prove their point).

SIDE NOTE: So there WAS a type of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russian Agents, but just not technically according to legal definitions. 

p. 196-199 Redacted (this is suspicious).

p. 199-206 All the indictments because of lying to the FBI

VOLUME 2 – Obstruction of Justice Investigation of the President

p. 213 MUELLER STATES THAT HE CANNOT PROSECUTE THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THAT ACTION IS UP TO CONGRESS. So he is only providing evidence here and it clearly points to the fact that Donald Trump obstructed justice.

p.213 MUELLERS STATES THAT A PRESIDENT CANNOT BE PROSECUTED (ONLY IMPEACHED), WHILE HE IS IN OFFICE. This leaves the door open for prosecution once Trump leaves office.

There is a good reason for this precedent. A President could be implicated in a dozen crimes of which he is innocent and standing trial for those crimes would take all of his or her time away from the all important office and duties he or she is meant to uphold. A President’s crimes must be so egregious and obvious that Impeachment becomes necessary and this requires an enormous majority of Congress to accomplish (which also makes it a Political trial more than an evidence-based trial).

p. 214 IF TRUMP WAS INNOCENT, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT WOULD HAVE STATED IT. HE IS NOT.

The report on Obstruction all but states that Trump committed Obstruction on the first page, but leaves the conclusion (and trial) up to the Congress.

p. 215 Mueller outlines the main evidence for Obstruction of Justice in the first chunk of this Volume. Here are the main points:

  1. During the 2016 campaign, Trump lied publicly that he did not believe Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC when privately he was seeking even more information from Wikileaks which he knew was connected to Russia.
  2. Trump also lied about having business connections in Russia during his campaign while he was, in fact, negotiating with Russian Oligarchs to build Trump Tower Moscow.
  3. After being elected, Trump expressed private concerns that the Russia Investigation might delegitimize his Presidency.
  4. On January 27th, 2017, the day after the President was informed that Michael Flynn lied to the FBI, the President invited FBI Director Comey to dinner at the White House and demanded loyalty.
  5. On February 14th, 2017, the day after the President asked for Flynn’s resignation, the President told an advisor, “Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over.” The advisor disagreed and said the investigation would continue. Hearing this, the President cleared the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with Comey (to the dismay of all of Trump’s advisors), and asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn.
  6. Trump sought to have Deputy National Advisor K.T. McFarland draft an internal letter stating that the President had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak (this is actually more proof of Russian Collusion). McFarland declined because she did not know if that was true and this letter would look like a quid-pro-quo for the ambassadorship she had just been offered.
  7. In February of 2017, Trump told Don McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing himself on the Russia Investigation. When Sessions recused himself, Trump expressed outrage and told advisors he should have an Attorney General that would protect him. Trump took Sessions aside that weekend and told him to “un-recuse.”
  8. Later in March, Comey publicly disclosed to Congress that the FBI was investigating “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election,” including any links to the Trump campaign. Trump reached out to DNI and CIA to get them to publicly dispel any suggestion the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort. The President also called Comey twice directly, against his own lawyer’s (Don McGahn’s) advice. He wanted Comey to publicly state that Trump was innocent.
  9. May 3rd, Comey testified in a congressional hearing, but declined to answer questions about whether the President was personally under investigation. Within days, the President decided to terminate Comey.
  10. The President insisted that the termination letter, which was written for public release, falsely state that Comey had informed the President he was not under investigation.
  11. The day of the firing, the White House maintained that Comey’s termination resulted from independent recommendations from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General that Comey should be discharged for mishandling the Hillary Clinton email investigation, but the President had decided to fire Comey before hearing from the Department of Justice so this was a lie.
  12. The day after firing Comey, the President told Russian officials that he had “faced great pressure because of Russia,” which had been “taken off” by Comey’s firing.
  13. The next day, the President acknowledged in a TV interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the DOJ’s recommendation and that when he “decided to just do it,” he was thinking that “this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.
  14. On May 17th, when Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel to investigate the Russian Election Interference and possible ties to Trump, the President reacted to this news saying: “this is the end of my presidency” and demanding that Sessions resign. Sessions resigned, but Trump did not accept it.
  15. The President tried to tell aides that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and could not continue. His advisors told him those alleged conflicts had no merit and were already considered by the Department of Justice.
  16. On June 14th, 2017, when Trump found out he was certainly under investigation, Trump fired off a series of tweets criticizing the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel’s investigation.
  17. On June 17th, 2017 the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had “conflicts of interest” and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out this decision deciding he would rather resign than carry out what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre (a reference to Watergate).
  18. Two days after directing McGahn to fire Mueller, the President made another attempt to affect the investigation. On June 19th, 2017, the President met one-on-one with his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, and dictated a message for Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions. He told Sessions to say that the investigation was “very unfair” to the President, the President had done nothing wrong, and Sessions planned to meet with the Special Counsel and “let him move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections.” Lewandowski never delivered this message, feeling uncomfortable with the request. He asked White House Official Rick Dearborn to do it, but he did not follow through either.
  19. Trump then began blasting Sessions on Twitter mocking him and letting him know his job was in jeopardy (clearly) because he was not fighting Mueller publicly in regards to this investigation.
  20. Trump edited a press statement about the June 9th, 2016 meeting at Trump tower deleting a sentence that stated the Russians had “information helpful to the campaign” and stating the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children. The President’s personal lawyer said the President had no role in drafting this statement, but this was later proven to be a lie. Trump helped to draft this lie to the Public about a very important component of the Russia Investigation (by itself this is obstruction).
  21. In early summer 2017, the President called Sessions at home and again asked him to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation. Sessions did not reverse his recusal.
  22. In October 2017, the President met privately with Sessions in the Oval Office and asked him to “take a look at investigating Clinton.”
  23. In December of 2017, shortly after Flynn pleaded guilty, Trump told Sessions that if he “un-recused himself and took back supervision of the Russia Investigation, he would be a hero.”
  24. In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to fire the Special Counsel in 2017 and that McGahn threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. Trump ordered McGahn to refute this claim publicly and make a record that this was never the case. McGahn told Trump officials (who were asking him to do this) that the reports were accurate and he would not lie. Trump later asked McGahn why he had told the truth to Mueller about Trump trying to get McGahn to fire him, and why McGahn took notes during their meetings.
  25. After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the President and began cooperating with the government, Trump’s personal counsel left a message for Flynn’s attorneys reminding them of Trump’s “warm feelings for him” which “still remain” and for a “heads up” if Flynn knew “information that implicates the President.”
  26. When Flynn’s counsel informed Trump that Flynn could no longer share information, the President’s counsel said he would make sure Flynn knew his actions reflected “hostility” towards the President.
  27. The President praised Manafort in public, calling him a “brave man” for refusing to “break” and said that “flipping” almost ought to be outlawed.
  28. Trump’s conduct towards Michael Cohen changed from praise for Cohen when he falsely minimized the President’s involvement in Trump Tower Moscow, to the castigation of Cohen when he became a cooperating witness.
  29. When Cohen started cooperating with Special Counsel, Trump publicly called him a “rat,” and suggested that his family members had committed crimes.
  30. Trump threatened witnesses in public and dangled pardons and this is still an obstruction of justice even though it was done in plain view.
  31. Trump acted in two phases: prior to being told he was under investigation and afterwards. The second phase also occurred after firing James Comey. His actions, both publicly and privately, after finding out he was being investigated demonstrate a clear motive to obstruct.

p. 220 The President’s counsel tried to stop the investigation into obstruction, but their defenses failed to provide a basis for declining to investigate the facts.

p. 220 The President is not immune from being prosecuted for Obstruction of Justice, but it is the Congress’ job to investigate and prosecute (impeachment).

The next 200 pages substantiate the above conclusions in great details.

In conclusion:

The President of the United States certainly obstructed justice and is also an unwitting (or possibly witting if more evidence presents itself) aid to Russia which is why they helped him win the 2016 election.

“Presidential Madness”

by with No Comment FeaturedSports

It’s upon us baby (in my Dick Vitale voice)! We’re right smack in the middle of March Madness with the Sweet Sixteen happening this weekend. Unlike in year’s past, this year’s tournament hasn’t produced many shockers or upsets, but there’s still a lot of basketball left for more buzzer beaters and heartaches.

March Madness is possibly the most intriguing sporting event. A 64-team tournament in which six games decided the difference between going home and being a national champion. The NCAA tournament has the feel of football, with only one game being played to either advance or go back to Sociology class, with a touch of the baseball, hockey, and basketball legendary game seven winner takes all vibe.

March Madness had me thinking of another grand competition set to happen later this year, and that’s the presidential primaries… “presidential madness” …if you will.

Given Trump pretty much will have the Republican Party primary on lock, being he’s an incumbent president (which even in 2019 I have trouble getting used too), most of the madness will come from the Democrat Party primary. Which is a 180-degree difference from the 2016 presidential primaries in which the dram was on the Republican side.

I wish there was true “presidential madness” in which regardless of party, all candidates could be pitted against each other, and each debate would decide if they advanced or not.

And the “presidential madness” wouldn’t even have to be truly presidential candidates or even elected officials. I mean given who the current president is, the days of a good “presidential resume” are over. Trump killed that.

This madness will simply be the 64 top seeded people with political stuff going on. So… with that being said imagine this…

#15 Seed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez vs #2 Seed Vice President Mike Pence

How happy would Vegas be if that upset took place! Much financial gain and personal happiness I’m sure. 

However, we know American politics are far too boring for anything like that. Yes, the first couple of presidential debates will be fun to watch, 15 people standing up there creating the best material that SNL writers could ever imagine. Then, by March 2020, the actual two candidates are left (UNC and Kentucky) and the eventual boredom of a once promising and exciting tournament ends with Duke (everyone’s safe pick in their bracket) cutting down the nets. Unfortunately, in this case, that would be Trump… again. ? 

Similar Read: Segregated Rosters

Reframing the Mueller Investigation

by with 2 Comments FeaturedGen ZPolitics

The Mueller report has been finalized, Barr has released a four-page summary to the American people, and now the fight has been moved to Congress to determine what happens from this point on.  Barr’s summary, though it is notably not a substitute for the entire report, states that “no evidence of collusion” was found on the President himself, and the obstruction of justice case produced results that neither “indict nor exonerate” Trump.  For Democrats, perhaps, and especially those that have been counting on Mueller to save them, the outcome, at least so far, was underwhelming. Now, the focus shifts to Congressional Democrats to decide whether they should fight to have the Mueller report released and move forward with a possible impeachment or simply move on.  But it is important to see the end of the Mueller investigation for what it is: not an unsatisfying end but part of the larger process to remove Trump from office. 

Before we go there, though, it is worth looking back at what reasonable observers should have expected at this point. The Mueller investigation took 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 interviewed witnesses, and almost two years.  Over its course, it charged 34 individuals, including nine connected to the Trump campaign, though it did not ultimately bring about criminal charges for Trump.  In a lot of ways, the Mueller investigation turned up way more information than we should have expected: what was once a question about a few Russian internet trolls and Facebook algorithms now sheds so much light on the wrongdoing inside and around the Trump campaign.  As compared to past scandals, spanning from Iran-Contra to Whitewater and beyond, Russiagate was a very successful investigation: many people very close to Trump are likely to receive justice and Mueller also recommended other findings about unrelated crimes to their respective departments.  For those who want to see Trump out of office and unable to act on his regressive agenda, the Mueller investigation was hardly a failure, even if it was overhyped by some.

Still, something about it feels disappointing, which is likely to do with our own naivety than anything else.  In other words, we should have expected this to be the institutional result of all this Russia-talk. In America, it has long been said that we have two justice systems—one for the poor and powerless and one for the rich and powerful—and that alone should explain the non-result which has come of Mueller’s investigation.  Beyond that, the history we like to remember tells us a much different story than the one which is true. In school, we all learn about Nixon’s impeachment, from break-in to coverup to resignation. We learn that a popular president was eventually forced to resign by an exhaustive investigation and about how the wheels of justice turn against all who are guilty.  But just maybe we forget or are unaware of the important context that goes along with it. A lot has been said recently of the allies Nixon courted precisely because of—and not in spite of—the Watergate investigation, of people like M. Stanton Evans who said, “I didn’t like Nixon until Watergate.” Eventually, the public turned against Nixon, despite their unwillingness to do so earlier, and the Republican Party was prompted to abandon him too.  In this way, impeachments are not like trials with Congress members as jurors, but trials in which the American people force their representatives’ hands.

Due to this reality, the lesson that transcends Nixon is that removing Trump from office through electing a Democrat in 2020 and through a successful impeachment are not necessarily two divergent strategies forward.  They are, at best, one strategy, with two divergent ends. In other words, the way to impeach Trump is not to find enough evidence to change the GOP’s view on him to obtain the votes, but to change the people’s minds enough to force the GOP to abandon him to protect themselves.  To do this, the Democrat’s private strategy must be seemingly at odds with their public choices. In effect, the bar for impeachment is much higher than the bar for voting him out in 2020: while no one who supports impeachment supports his eventual re-election, there are many Americans currently who support neither his impeachment nor his re-election.  The path forward, then, is to use the cloud of the Russiagate scandal along with the failings of the Trump presidency to fell the president, killing two birds with one stone towards getting him out of office.

On the former, the Democrats have a lot to work with: the uncertainty of the verdict of the Mueller report, it doesn’t exonerate the president, nor leave him untouched with the indictments of his former staff; its incomplete nature, as the people have not read the report and the investigation did not touch on many of issues raised since by Cohen’s testimony; and the apparent secrecy of the findings, Barr issued a summary letter when an innocence-proving-document would warrant a public release.  All of this makes up the public strategy forward for Democrats, but—though I am rarely one to warn Democrats about going too far—I would say their private agenda should be one of caution. Clearly, the evidence in the case is not overwhelming, or Barr would have had to cede such findings. Therefore, impeaching Trump on the grounds of Mueller’s investigation alone with a Republican majority in the Senate is patently impossible.  With that said, Democrats need to publicly raise the Russia questions while never quite bringing the issue to a breaking point, which would likely go against them. To the plain eye, Trump is a conman, but the burden of proof for people as powerful as he is high, and that must be understood.

The point in all this is that the left would benefit from a reframing of Mueller’s investigation from a verdict of success or failure towards a realization that this is but one step in the ultimate process.  While they should not count on the Russia scandal, the left also must never forget it: when they win, they hold all the cards to enact their agenda and keep their place. It is then up to the opposition—those who support democracy and the rule of law—to take it from them.  While legal justice requires a standard beyond reasonable doubt, electoral justice only requires 270. 

Similar Read: Kamala or Bust? 

Professional Fandom: Donald Trump, Robert Mueller, Sports, and Pop Culture

by with 2 Comments CultureFeaturedPolitics

Last Friday, the most anticipated political moment of the Trump Presidency occurred: The Mueller Report was completed and submitted to the Justice Department. Within minutes of the breaking news, every cable news channel, political blog, and Facebook newsfeed was flooded with a flurry of opinions without any new details. While it is a perfect example of the hyper-polarization of today’s political climate, it is also a microcosm of a much deeper trend that transcends politics. Like our interest levels in sports, music, and entertainment in general, our passion is no longer rational and under control. Due to the global reach of social media with immediate access to anything that strokes our most passionate interests, it is no longer acceptable to be a casual fan. You are required to devote a level of obsession that previously was considered psychotic.

Through social media and advancements in technology, fans of any form of entertainment have access to stoke their curiosity level from casual to knowledgeable to obsessive. There are Facebook groups, hashtags, fan pages, message boards, YouTube channels, smart apps, etc., dedicated to every cinematic or musical genre, sport, team, political candidate, and political or current event. If you are a fan of your college team, there are multiple message boards that provide in-depth analysis, recruiting updates, and behind-the-scenes stories regarding potential coaching challenges that keep you informed before any of it hits the mainstream news. If you are a fan of the WWE, you have an on-demand network that has every match, pay-per-view, or show. If you are a big video gamer, you can play every game online with people across the globe on every gaming console (Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, PC) that matches your skill level and personal tastes. Simply put, if you have more than a surface-level interest in something, you will be exposed to enough material to progress that interest from ‘Intrigued’ to ‘Passionate’.

Like our entertainment options, the same options are available for our political tastes. Whether it’s the cable news channels that unabashedly market to a specific political affiliation, Facebook groups and fan pages devoted to individual candidates or causes, or the pre-determined newsfeed of our Facebook page from the people we associate with, it is nearly impossible for someone with an interest in politics to not make the emotional leap from a responsible voter to outspoken advocate. As one’s interest grows, the pressure from fellow believers is to only communicate and associate with likeminded views while censuring out anything that challenges or competes with that unassailable principle. One’s community is no longer your next-door neighbours or co-workers; it’s the hundreds of people we communicate with daily across the world. In many cases, these ‘friends’ are people we have never met and will never meet in person.

As our created communities become more politically homogeneous, our tolerance for divergent views weakens. If this were a football game, we became ‘That’ fan with our face and chest painted in team colors standing in sub-freezing temperatures heckling every opposing player or fan present. No one questions our fandom, but opposing fans and even some mutual fans, will dodge us to avoid making a scene or listen to a guilt trip for being a ‘Fairweather fan’. As voters transform from the family taking their kids to their first ballgame to ‘That’ fan, the political candidates who best play to ‘That’ fan are the ones that rise to the top. Donald Trump is NOT the cause of this dynamic, he is the byproduct of it.  

President Trump is the perfect byproduct of this phenomena. For the most part, no one is a casual fan or critic of him. He uses this dynamic to provoke the (predictable) reactions from his audience. If this was a neutral stadium, he’s provoking the liquored-up super fans from both teams to go at in the stands. In a vacuum, we generally find this behavior disgusting, but the reality is we all had a hand in this. The reality is we are all guilty of being ‘That’ fan (I am guilty when it comes to A&M football, Spurs basketball, and the WWE). For some of us, it’s politics. For others, it’s a sports franchise, musical artist, or gaming community. Having passion for something is a GREAT thing, but if our passion controls our behavior and character it will continue to poison the well for future generations. 

Similar Read: A Center-Right Response to Climate Change

Not Counting Calories (Cohen And Faithful Trumpers)

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

During the 2016 Presidential campaign, Donald Trump regularly ate McDonald’s and other fast food. Each meal contained nearly a day’s worth of calories and sodium! Almost double the recommended daily dose of saturated fat and two and a half times the sugar he should eat in a day, according to US Dietary Guidelines.

When the National Champion Clemson Tigers visited the White House, the traditional catered meal wasn’t an option due to the government shutdown. Instead, Trump famously paid for their dinner… an all-out fast food buffet extravaganza! Enough food that surely broke the record for calories per person. 

Trumps eating habits would only bother one who actually took their health seriously. And one of the ways you do that is by watching your calorie intake.

Even without the bun, which is how Trump eats his sandwiches, fast food is ridiculously unhealthy. But Trump doesn’t care about that, and you know who else isn’t counting calories… beloved Trump voters just like Trump himself, they don’t care about calories. 

Even though there’s a not so shocking correlation in that the states who voted for Trump are also the most obese states in the nation, I’m not just talking about food. I’m talking about the evidence that continues to pile up against the improprieties of the Donald Trump presidency.

The Cohen interview… hearing… spilling the tea… whatever you want to call it, it’ll have zero effect on Trump voters, despite how damaging it was against the Trump presidency.

Why is this important? 

Because Trump has entrenched a cult, and not based solely on party lines; but of people who believe his acts are on the right side of history. They don’t really believe this, nor do they care. They care that Trump is a president mostly for the preservation and advancement of Whiteness, more so than any president since Reagan.

Though that’s toxic for all, it’s what they know (a White majority thinking nation) and what makes them most comfortable. Just like fast food. You see that golden arch after a long drive or long day, and no matter how much you know it will hurt your stomach and destroy your diet, you begrudgingly pull into the drive-thru line and place your order… a number 2… super-sized… with a Diet Coke, of course.