“It’s a little too quiet” - US Politics February 2021

I wish the media would stop reporting on Nobel "nominations."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/01/you-too-can-become-nobel-peace-prize-nominee/

As it turns out, while a Nobel Peace Prize nomination is a bit trickier than simply sending a guy in Norway a postcard with someone’s name on it, it’s not much trickier than that. A nomination is, in essence, as serious as the person doing the submitting — who is a member of a not particularly rarefied group of people.

...

Where can one find an acceptable nominator? Well, the Nobel committee has a list explaining who can do so. It includes such elite individuals as members of the International Court of Justice in The Hague and those who have themselves been recipients of the prize.

It also includes “members of national assemblies and national governments of sovereign states” and “university professors, professors emeriti and associate professors of history, social sciences, law, philosophy, theology, and religion.” Among others.

In other words, a nomination for the prize is legitimate if, say, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who is a member of the United States’ national assembly, sends a letter of nomination to the committee. A nomination is legitimate if you get the associate professor of history at Your Town State University to send a similar letter.

What is unclear to me from the sources used in that article is whether Waters was objecting because she didn't like what Porter was doing or if it was because of a procedural issue she is meant to enforce as head of the committee. I don't believe Waters herself has a reputation for being for banks and against consumers but I'm not super familiar with her record beyond her presence during the Rodney King riots and asking for an investigation into whether the CIA pushed crack into the inner city.

I do know that, as a Black American, I'm immediately suspicious of any article that accuses a longstanding Black congressperson whose record has largely been defined by standing up for their community of impeding a good White congressperson who's just trying to give these ungrateful people the help their so-called "leaders" have been withholding

I am even more suspicious when I click through on the byline and the article is written by a White man

The two-term congresswoman is seriously considering campaigning for the seat but is so far undecided, according to people familiar with her thinking.

Like so much that she does, this shows very well-calibrated political instincts.

xp: None of which is to say the article is de facto invalid but I think interrogating confirmation bias would be helpful to many of you

The current White House is reviewing whether or not to revoke President Trump’s access to the intelligence briefings that are typically granted to former presidents, according to @PressSec.

— Matt Viser (@mviser) February 1, 2021

Ya think?

I don't think Trump really cares about intelligence briefings in or out of office.

Probably cares about them more now, if there is at all a way for him to monetize them.

He doesn’t care to absorb the information but he’d totally want to “receive” them as a matter of principle and make some cash off of them.

I mean, couldn't he also, with access to intelligence, gather information that he could use to, say, fuel bullshit lawsuits?

yeah he absolutely wants those briefings (even if he understands none of it) and is gonna play the victim card so fucking hard over this

"I have been treated worse than every twice-impeached, single-term president in history!"

xp: None of which is to say the article is de facto invalid but I think interrogating confirmation bias would be helpful to many of you

― Hello Nice FBI Lady (DJP), Monday, February 1, 2021 3:03 PM (thirty minutes ago)

I like Porter a lot, but yeah that piece features some very dubious Maxine Waters mind-reading. You're off to an indefensible start if your sub-headline has the phrase "Waters appears to have a problem" in it

xp: None of which is to say the article is de facto invalid but I think interrogating confirmation bias would be helpful to many of you

― Hello Nice FBI Lady (DJP), Monday, February 1, 2021 3:03 PM (thirty minutes ago)

I like Porter a lot, but yeah that piece features some very dubious Maxine Waters mind-reading. You're off to an indefensible start if your sub-headline has the phrase "Waters appears to have a problem" in it

― rob, Monday, February 1, 2021 8:40 PM (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

agree with all this.

I have a stupid question.

Is it possible, under the current US governmental system, to write a bill that says, basically, "The financial benefits of this package extend only to the states whose Senators vote in favor of it; if you vote against it, your state doesn't get any of the gravy"? I realize that the US Senate (well, the Democratic Party, anyway) would never do something so rude and combative, but is it even constitutionally feasible?

that sounds like an absolutely terrible idea, so i'm sure it's possible

I don't think so. Congress can obviously appropriate funding to specific projects in specific states, but I think federal laws apply to the whole country. States have jurisdiction over state-only regulations.

It's an interesting idea, but each state has two Senators so I could see the vote splitting all the time.

Is it possible, under the current US governmental system, to write a bill that says, basically, "The financial benefits of this package extend only to the states whose Senators vote in favor of it; if you vote against it, your state doesn't get any of the gravy"? I realize that the US Senate (well, the Democratic Party, anyway) would never do something so rude and combative, but is it even constitutionally feasible?

I don't think constitutionally it's possible -- a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, no? Someone help.

I figure if that ploy were available it would have been in common use since before 1850.

Apologies if this was already posted since the article is from Jan. 28, but… lol:

https://www.businessinsider.com/qanon-shaman-jacob-chansley-wants-to-testify-at-trump-impeachment-2021-1

Yes pls

re: waters, i would have been fine with her and all other 82 year old representatives retiring last november.

but she has/is on the receiving end of a ton of assumptions about her abilities and the usual implication that people with a background in local politics of big cities are corrupt, all of which is of course extremely racist.

No shirt, no shoes, no service, shaman dude.

lol, it would be awesome if he appeared as full shaman, but with a tie on, too.

Depose him and use any parts you find useful, but don't let him testify in person.

Knowing the Trump administration, they would probably accidentally book Mr. C.

To be clear, I think the Democrats need to be encouraging and developing talent younger than 40 so that there are people ready to step into the fray when the current leadership dies (because they will die on the job, that is what they do). I'd be much, much happier if everyone 70 or older had a younger protégé in a state office that they were mentoring/supporting to replace them at the Federal level, introducing them to constituents and socializing/supporting their platforms so they would be known entities with some level of name recognition and association with political involvement before election time/primaries rolled around, just so it felt less like Democatic elders were bogarting all the work and glory and taking their clout with them when they go.

(I reserve the right to backtrack on that if the Democrats present an entire army of Buttigiegs)

I believe the popular usage of 'research' pretty much just means 'google search'.

― Vladislav Bibidonurtmi (Old Lunch)

nah they use duck duck go

AskJeeves

I believe the popular usage of 'research' pretty much just means 'google search'.

― Vladislav Bibidonurtmi (Old Lunch)

god, if only it did. for the true idiots who "research", or more often than not means "the links they clicked on in the facebook group"

Was about to say. If these people's google-fu was even so much as decent we wouldn't be here.

but also, google itself has become worse. the ratio of legit/relevant things to products/sponsored/garbage results gets lower and lower each year

Rep. @AOC will go live on Instagram tonight. She plans to share details of what happened to her during the Capitol insurrection.

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 1, 2021

Hopefully she won't pull a Maddow.

The House Rules Committee will move Wednesday to begin the process of removing @mtgreenee from the Ed/Labor committee.

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) February 1, 2021

xpost - Eh, I don't feel like there's ever been a precedent for her pulling anything like that. I'm guessing it's only happening now because she's had to talk with some lawyers about how much detail she can get into at this point without jeopardizing any ongoing investigations.

(I reserve the right to backtrack on that if the Democrats present an entire army of Buttigiegs)

god yes. the gerontocracy running the democratic party is dumb and bad and something i love to bitch about, but then they try to primary a pretty moderate but decent guy like Markey with the dampest, palest Kennedy and it's like No Please Not Like That

(I reserve the right to backtrack on that if the Democrats present an entire army of Buttigiegs)

Don't want to be pedantic here but I'm pretty sure the correct plural is Buttigieux

I'm not sure he really even needs a defense team, but this could prove awkward:

The trial could be particularly dangerous, legal scholars said, if Trump built his case around his lie that the November election was stolen and Senate Republicans effectively endorsed that lie, in unprecedented numbers, by voting to acquit.

Multiple reports suggested Trump jettisoned his previous legal team because they were unwilling to recite the election fraud lie. Trump’s new lawyers, David Schoen and Bruce Castor, did not indicate what defense they had planned...

Markey deserved to win that race even imo though “he’s being primaried from the right” was kind of a phony baloney talking point. Did he have some bad pretty votes over the years? Sure but he became more progressive over time just like his friend President Joe Biden.

Don't want to be pedantic here but I'm pretty sure the correct plural is Buttigieux

― Guayaquil (eephus!)

Buttiteras

So I guess this is what happens without the fabled organizing resolution?

I keep telling you the GOP is still in charge of Senate committees. And Merrick Garland still can't get a hearing.https://t.co/X9VfgneF4C

— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) February 1, 2021

We don’t have a rolling dystopia thread

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/01/upshot/rich-hospitals-profit-poor.html

“he’s being primaried from the right” was kind of a phony baloney talking point

but it was just sO wEiRd that he was being primaried at all, right? since that's Bad Form and Bad for Democrats and consultants who engage in such transgressions are to be blacklisted (and yes as i understand it this was a position taken by DCCC, not explicitly on senate races)

something tells me anyone who worked on Kennedy's senate campaign will be juuuust fine though

what happened with the organizing resolution? it was reported that McConnell back off his filibuster threat last week. Does anyone know what they are stuck on now?

This is built on a quoted Times story, but Times site fucking with me:

A whistleblower alleged Monday that a top Trump administration official abused his authority by entering into a series of last-minute agreements with the union for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers that could hamstring President Joe Biden’s sweeping policy changes.

The letter released by the Government Accountability Project, which was sent to congressional committees and the Department of Homeland Security inspector general, alleges that Ken Cuccinelli, the former acting second-in-command at the Department of Homeland Security, signed a set of agreements with the ICE union, which endorsed former president Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020.

“The agreements grant [the union] extraordinary power and benefits — far more than what DHS agreed upon with its other employee unions which did not endorse President Trump. The agreements confer on the union the ability to indefinitely delay changes to immigration enforcement policies and practices as well,” the letter, written by David Seide, an attorney with the Government Accountability Project, states. “Moreover, under the agreements, ICE expressly waives statutory management rights which negotiating parties know better than to waive. Even more shockingly, the agreements attempt to prohibit any challenge to their validity for eight years.”

According to the Government Accountability Project, the agreement could give the ICE union “unprecedented veto authority in many areas” and increase the use of agency resources. The letter was first reported by the New York Times.

The group says it is representing the whistleblower, who is a current government official and “possesses information concerning significant acts of misconduct committed” by Cuccinelli.

The controversial former acting deputy secretary also signed a series of agreements that required DHS to provide notice of immigration policy changes to local jurisdictions to give them six months to review and submit comments. The state of Texas, which signed one of the agreements, eventually sued DHS over its implementation of a deportation moratorium, claiming it violated the contract.

However!
The letter states that the government has 30 days to officially disapprove of the union agreement.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/ice-union-agreements-biden-policies

just so it felt less like Democatic elders were bogarting all the work and glory and taking their clout with them when they go.

― Hello Nice FBI Lady (DJP), Tuesday, February 2, 2021 9:03 AM (one hour ago)

(I reserve the right to backtrack on that if the Democrats present an entire army of Buttigiegs)

― Hello Nice FBI Lady (DJP), Tuesday, February 2, 2021 9:04 AM (one hour ago)

don't bogart the buttiegiegs

I'm reminded again of teh quote about how its better to pick the administration that you would rather fight rather than the one that would be ideal. Since its inevitably going to be somewhat different to your idea of how things should be done and opinions will differ between you as member of the public/radical and member of the administration/gatekeeper. Also that there will be protocols and red tape that one would have to negotiate to get things done and not added to where possible. ( actually now seeing how that gets confused into somebody from outside DC seeing all legislation as being discardable arbitrarily and contrasts with some red tape actually protecting elements of society that need protecting, but probably need better worded legislation.)

Close thread, mods?

I'll lock it after there's a March thread I can link to.

Beware the Ides of March -- U.S. Politics March 2021