10 votes

Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of September 18

Automatically posted
Tags: usa, politics, recurring.weekly

This thread is posted weekly - please try to post all relevant US political content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Extremely significant events may warrant a separate topic, but almost all should be posted in here.

This is an inherently political thread; please try to avoid antagonistic arguments and bickering matches. Comment threads that devolve into unproductive arguments may be removed so that the overall topic is able to continue.

16 comments

  1. spit-evil-olive-tips
    Link
    from Parker Molloy: There's only one way to interview Donald Trump, and it's not whatever Kristen Welker did over the weekend.

    from Parker Molloy:

    There's only one way to interview Donald Trump, and it's not whatever Kristen Welker did over the weekend.

    Take the much-hyped Meet the Press interview that ran over the weekend. To say it was bad is an understatement. For instance, at one point, Trump made a baseless claim to host Kristen Welker that Bank of America and Chase “discriminate against conservatives and Republicans.” Here’s how Welker responded:

    WELKER: What’s the evidence for that, Mr. President?

    TRUMP: Oh, we’ll give you plenty of evidence—

    WELKER: Okay. All right, well, let’s stay on track with this question, though. So, just to be very clear, if you were reelected, would you direct your Fed chair to lower interest rates?

    Setting aside the massively cringy “Mr. President” that’s thrown in there, you can’t just let him spew nonsense and then move on without getting to the bottom of it. Moving on for the sake of “stay[ing] on track” is a failure.

    10 votes
  2. [9]
    boxer_dogs_dance
    (edited )
    Link
    https://jacobin.com/2023/09/wealth-tax-supreme-court-katyal-safe A Move to Try to Preemptively Outlaw a Billionaire Wealth Tax nb, I sometimes but rarely post articles from Jacobin. I don't agree...

    https://jacobin.com/2023/09/wealth-tax-supreme-court-katyal-safe

    A Move to Try to Preemptively Outlaw a Billionaire Wealth Tax

    nb, I sometimes but rarely post articles from Jacobin. I don't agree with all of their priorities and perspectives. However, I thought the information was important and interesting.

    7 votes
    1. [8]
      The_God_King
      Link Parent
      This is an impressively misleading headline. Holy shit. There aren't democrat politicians trying to preempt a wealth tax. There are two lobbyists, one of whom was a former state senator, are. And,...

      This is an impressively misleading headline. Holy shit. There aren't democrat politicians trying to preempt a wealth tax. There are two lobbyists, one of whom was a former state senator, are. And, as the article admits, they're trying to do it to stop a democrat plan.

      This is incredible. Usually you have to go to fox news to find this kind of disengenuous headline.

      6 votes
      1. [5]
        spit-evil-olive-tips
        Link Parent
        I don't see why? "Some Democrats Are Trying to Preemptively Outlaw a Billionaire Tax" Neal Katyal is very much a Democrat. in addition to being the Acting Solicitor General under Obama: and the...

        This is an impressively misleading headline.

        I don't see why? "Some Democrats Are Trying to Preemptively Outlaw a Billionaire Tax"

        Neal Katyal is very much a Democrat. in addition to being the Acting Solicitor General under Obama:

        He also represented Vice President Al Gore as co-counsel in Bush v. Gore

        and the other is John Breaux

        one of whom was a former state senator

        no, he was a Democratic member of the US Senate from Louisiana for 18 years (and the US House for 15 years before that)

        Katyal in particular has a history of being buddy-buddy with conservatives:

        Katyal endorsed President Donald Trump's nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court in an op-ed to The New York Times. When that newspaper's public editor criticized the op-ed for failing to disclose Katyal had active cases being considered by the Court, Katyal responded that it would have been obvious he always has cases being heard by the Supreme Court. Katyal formally introduced Gorsuch on the first day of his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings.

        In addition to Gorsuch, Katyal also spoke highly of Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In multiple tweets that were cited by Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in favor of Kavanaugh's confirmation, Katyal praised Kavanaugh's "credentials [and] hardworking nature", and described his "mentoring and guidance" of female law clerks as "a model for all of us in the legal profession".

        a Democrat praising Kavanaugh's treatment of his female law clerks. with friends like these, who needs enemies?

        I think the point that Jacobin is making is that you would expect opposition to a wealth tax from Republicans, but having it come from Democrats as well might be surprising to some people who think of Democrats as being a "left-wing" party.

        and besides those two:

        SAFE hired former North Dakota Democratic senator Heidi Heitkamp to defend the tax loophole, just months after she called it “one of the biggest scams in the history of forever on income redistribution.”

        3 votes
        1. [4]
          The_God_King
          Link Parent
          Clearly I should have looked into these people a bit more, but it doesn't change my overall point. They're not democratic lawmakers. At best, they're former lawmakers, and I think that is an...

          Clearly I should have looked into these people a bit more, but it doesn't change my overall point. They're not democratic lawmakers. At best, they're former lawmakers, and I think that is an important distinction to make. The headline implies that it's democratic lawmakers working against a wealth tax, and you don't think that's intentionally misleading?

          Writing the headlines like this makes it seem like the democrats writing the laws, the ones with the actual power, are trying to stop a wealth tax. When in reality the exact opposite is the case. It's just more fodder for the people claiming the democrats are just as bad as republicans when it comes to how we treat the rich.

          5 votes
          1. [3]
            spit-evil-olive-tips
            Link Parent
            I don't think it does. I think you're reading too much into the headline, and then blaming the headline writer for your misunderstanding. the headline says they're trying to "outlaw" a wealth tax....

            The headline implies that it's democratic lawmakers working against a wealth tax

            I don't think it does. I think you're reading too much into the headline, and then blaming the headline writer for your misunderstanding.

            the headline says they're trying to "outlaw" a wealth tax. yes, one way of doing that is to pass a law. the other way is through the courts, which is what they're attempting.

            by your standard, this headline from 1954 is also misleading? Supreme Court Outlaws Segregation in Schools

            as well as this one from a few months ago? Divided Supreme Court outlaws affirmative action in college admissions, says race can't be used

            in both cases, they're using "outlaw" in a context that does not involve lawmakers in Congress passing legislation.

            or, from today: Germany outlaws neo-Nazi group

            that decision was made by the German Federal Interior Minister, not by their parliament passing a law. so by this standard it's also misleading, right?

            the democrats writing the laws, the ones with the actual power

            I think part of the point of the article is that this isn't really true. Democrats in Congress have very little power, mainly due to Senate filibuster rules. courts, especially the Supreme Court, have much more power. there's a reason this "Saving America’s Family Enterprises" group is lobbying the Supreme Court.

            also, the headline says "Some Democrats" - isn't that making clear that Democrats aren't a monolith, with some Democrats supporting a wealth tax, and some opposing it?

            It's just more fodder for the people claiming the democrats are just as bad as republicans when it comes to how we treat the rich.

            if you could rewrite the headline, what would you change it to?

            and whatever that headline would be, couldn't it still be used as fodder for the type of people you're talking about here?

            it seems like your real frustration is with those people, but you're redirecting it at this headline.

            2 votes
            1. [2]
              The_God_King
              Link Parent
              What a bizarre rebuttal. What do any of those headlines have to do with the point I was making? My issue isn't with the use of the word outlaw and who it applies to. My issue is with the...

              What a bizarre rebuttal. What do any of those headlines have to do with the point I was making? My issue isn't with the use of the word outlaw and who it applies to. My issue is with the mischaracterization of the democrats and their policy goals. When a layperson reads a headline like that, the natural conclusion to draw from it is that the democrats, I'm general, are working to outlaw a wealth tax. When in fact the opposite is true. The democrats referenced in the title are the outlier.

              Setting aside whether or not it was intentional, do you really not understand how it's misleading?

              2 votes
              1. spit-evil-olive-tips
                Link Parent
                what confused me is that you said: when the subject of the headline is just "Some Democrats". so it seemed like you were also latching on to "outlaw" being in the headline and claiming that "Some...

                What do any of those headlines have to do with the point I was making? My issue isn't with the use of the word outlaw and who it applies to.

                what confused me is that you said:

                The headline implies that it's democratic lawmakers

                when the subject of the headline is just "Some Democrats".

                so it seemed like you were also latching on to "outlaw" being in the headline and claiming that "Some Democrats Are Trying to Preemptively Outlaw..." implies that those "Some Democrats" must be lawmakers. the examples I gave showed that "outlaw" is commonly used to mean courts and administrative officials and not just lawmakers.

                I guess, if you weren't referring to the use of "outlaw", you're instead assuming that any mention of "Democrats" in the headline automatically implies they're Democratic lawmakers? that makes even less sense to me.

                When a layperson reads a headline like that, the natural conclusion to draw from it is that the democrats, in general...

                I don't think that's a "natural conclusion". I think that's the conclusion you reached, and you're generalizing and assuming that everyone reads headlines the same way you do.

                if we can play another round of headline comparison:

                Some House Republicans shrug off shutdown concerns

                Some Republicans want more details on McConnell's health after another freeze-up

                Some Republicans are angry about Trump’s prosecution yet ready to vote for someone else in 2024

                Dianne Feinstein: Why some Democrats want one of their own to resign

                Biden reelection bid faces resistance from some Democrats

                Some Democrats worry crackdown on TikTok could hurt party

                for each of those headlines, you're saying that the "natural conclusion" is that it's the stance of the party as a whole? I think that's absurd.

                it means what it says - it's some of them. if it were a stance taken by party leadership, or a position adopted by a majority of the party such as by voting on some piece of legislation or adopting a plank in the party platform, the headline would probably say that instead.

                do you really not understand how it's misleading?

                I disagree that it's misleading. I'm trying to understand why you think it's misleading. this patronizing tone isn't helping me understand.

                honestly, I think all that happened here is that you misread the headline. that's not the same as the headline being objectively misleading.

                2 votes
      2. [3]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. [2]
          boxer_dogs_dance
          Link Parent
          @The_God_King Katyal is a lawyer and a law firm partner and a former Obama administration employee, not a lobbyist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Katyal

          @The_God_King Katyal is a lawyer and a law firm partner and a former Obama administration employee, not a lobbyist

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Katyal

          1. The_God_King
            Link Parent
            Fair enough. I saw that he was acting on behalf of SAFE and assumed it was a lobbyist group, given that it is run by lobbyists.

            Fair enough. I saw that he was acting on behalf of SAFE and assumed it was a lobbyist group, given that it is run by lobbyists.

            1 vote
  3. spit-evil-olive-tips
    Link
    from Thomas Zimmer, a visiting professor of history at Georgetown University: The treacherous allure of the “polarization” dogma: On the limits and pitfalls of a narrative that obscures more than...

    from Thomas Zimmer, a visiting professor of history at Georgetown University:

    The treacherous allure of the “polarization” dogma: On the limits and pitfalls of a narrative that obscures more than it illuminates – A Manifesto, Part I

    None of these developments are adequately captured by an interpretation that emphasizes “polarization” of both political parties and “extremism on both sides.” And yet: The least controversial thing one can do in American politics is to decry “polarization.” Whoever does it will be rewarded with a steady stream of nodding heads from almost across the political spectrum: Yes, polarization! The root of all evil that plagues America!

    4 votes
  4. unkz
    Link
    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senator-menendez-charged-with-corruption-prosecutors-2023-09-22/ US Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey and two businessmen involved in his campaign were...

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senator-menendez-charged-with-corruption-prosecutors-2023-09-22/

    US Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey and two businessmen involved in his campaign were indicted on federal bribery charges related to political favors. Prosecutors allege Menendez accepted thousands of dollars in bribes in exchange for using his influence to advocate for the businessmen's interests with the Egyptian government. The indictment claims one businessman paid for home repairs and a luxury car for Menendez. If convicted, this would be the first time Menendez has been convicted, though he has been investigated twice before on corruption allegations. The charges come at a difficult time for Democrats as they aim to retain their slim Senate majority in next year's midterm elections.

    3 votes
  5. PantsEnvy
    Link
    How Rupert Murdoch Decided to Dump Tucker Carlson Long read. Here is an auto generated summary which is actually very good. Basically, Rupert Murdoch wanted to settle the dominion law suit for...

    How Rupert Murdoch Decided to Dump Tucker Carlson

    Long read. Here is an auto generated summary which is actually very good.

    After Donald Trump's election in 2016, Fox News, despite founder Rupert Murdoch's initial reservations about Trump, became more successful than ever. This success came despite the network's challenges, including the departure of Roger Ailes due to a sexual harassment scandal, Bill O'Reilly's exit amid another harassment scandal, and Megyn Kelly's departure. Trump became the network's star, leading to a reshuffling of the prime-time lineup, with figures like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson gaining prominence.

    Tucker Carlson, in particular, was seen as a moderate Republican who could balance Fox News away from reflexive Trumpism. However, he emerged as a staunch supporter of Trump and became a ratings winner, along with Trump himself. This presented a dilemma for Rupert Murdoch, who had hoped for a different direction for the network.

    The New York Times published a three-part series on Tucker Carlson in April 2022, which portrayed his programming strategy as aligning with MAGA while distancing himself from Trump and Fox's right-wing identity. The series criticized Carlson for his views, including his stance on Ukraine and his perceived anti-Catholic sentiment. This attack on Carlson posed a challenge for Murdoch, especially from his children and his wife, Jerry Hall, who read the New York Times.

    Another headache for Murdoch was a defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News and its parent company, Fox Corp. The lawsuit potentially implicated top executives, including Murdoch himself, and had the potential to be financially devastating. Despite this, Murdoch's legal team appeared unconcerned, while Murdoch himself seemed in denial about Fox's role in the lawsuit.

    As the 2022 midterm elections approached, tensions between Murdoch and Trump grew. Murdoch viewed Trump as an "asshole" and a "loser," wanting to distance himself from the former president. However, Fox's success was closely tied to Trump's popularity among its viewers.

    The possibility of supporting a conservative candidate other than Trump, like Ron DeSantis, was complicated for Tucker Carlson. He had grown disillusioned with the Fox-Trump alliance and feared being left on his own if Fox News decided to part ways with him. Running for president appeared to be his alternative, with a focus on foreign policy and being the antiwar candidate.

    Rupert Murdoch blamed his son Lachlan for not controlling Carlson and his potential presidential ambitions. Murdoch was wary of another president representing Fox's conspiracy-laden and populist image. Despite the rumors, he dismissed the idea of Carlson becoming president, echoing his previous skepticism about Trump's candidacy.

    Before the Dominion trial began, there were negotiations involving Tucker Carlson, Rupert Murdoch, and others at Fox News. Dominion was demanding a billion dollars in damages, but Murdoch was unwilling to pay that much, fearing the public relations fallout. A settlement was discussed, which included offering to fire Sean Hannity, although it was not a formal part of the agreement. The settlement amount was eventually negotiated to $787 million, and Carlson being fired was also agreed to as part of the deal.

    Shortly before the trial, Carlson had a dinner with Rupert Murdoch and his fiancée, Ann Lesley Smith, which seemed pleasant. However, Carlson's increasing influence and potential presidential ambitions were concerning to Murdoch.

    After the settlement was reached, Tucker Carlson was notified that he wouldn't have to testify in the trial. However, Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott called him and informed him that he was being taken off the air permanently. The reasons for his removal were not initially provided, leading to speculation and confusion.

    Fox News faced backlash and criticism for removing Carlson from the air, and the network's PR arm, led by Irena Briganti, launched a campaign to discredit him, citing alleged moral turpitude and bizarre views. This campaign played out in the media, including through The New York Times. Fox was in a difficult position, trying to distance itself from Carlson while not officially firing him.

    Despite the negative media attention, Fox was reluctant to sue Carlson, and he began broadcasting on Elon Musk's social media platform, X. Fox later revamped its schedule, moving Laura Ingraham to the 7 p.m. hour and filling prime time with other hosts.

    Carlson and Trump considered teaming up for counterprogramming events against Fox, and Trump even discussed Carlson as a possible vice-presidential candidate. The dynamics at Fox were shifting, with Carlson and Trump becoming larger than the network itself.

    In the end, Rupert Murdoch, the aging media mogul, found himself in a complex and uncertain position, reflecting on the monsters he had helped create and trying to navigate the changing landscape of his media empire.

    Basically, Rupert Murdoch wanted to settle the dominion law suit for under $1b, and so threw Carlson under the bus as a sweetener. But Rupert Murdoch had already soured on Carlson for echoing Trumps hateful demagoguery, and perhaps more importantly, fearing that Carlson was planning to run for president as a demagogue.

    2 votes
  6. boxer_dogs_dance
    Link
    https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-wrote-lists-assistant-white-house-documents-marked/story?id=103226113&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email Trump wrote to-do lists for assistant on White House...

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-wrote-lists-assistant-white-house-documents-marked/story?id=103226113&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

    Trump wrote to-do lists for assistant on White House documents marked classified:
    Molly Michael told investigators about the documents, according to sources.

    More about Molly Michael
    https://www.axios.com/2022/03/31/trump-molly-michael-jan6-white-house-call-logs?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/top-trump-campaign-aide-identified-key-individual-classified/story?id=100452600&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

    2 votes
  7. spit-evil-olive-tips
    Link
    from Mark Joesph Stern: America’s Worst Judge Declares War on Drag and from Chris Geidner, author of the "Law Dork" Substack: Kacsmaryk lets Texas campus drag ban stand in ruling that splits with...

    from Mark Joesph Stern: America’s Worst Judge Declares War on Drag

    U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk is a proud Christian nationalist who flatly refuses to apply binding Supreme Court precedent when it conflicts with his extremist far-right beliefs. It is therefore no surprise that Kacsmaryk, a Donald Trump appointee, handed down a decision on Thursday refusing to protect Texas college students’ right to host a drag show. In a break with other (conservative) courts, Kacsmaryk found that drag is likely not protected expression under the First Amendment, but rather “vulgar and lewd” “sexualized conduct” that may be outlawed to protect “the sexual exploitation and abuse of children.” In short, he concluded that drag fails to convey a message, while explaining all the reasons why he’s offended by the message it conveys.

    and from Chris Geidner, author of the "Law Dork" Substack: Kacsmaryk lets Texas campus drag ban stand in ruling that splits with other courts

    It’s an extremely troubling decision on several grounds that runs counter to decisions in Tennessee, Florida, Utah, and Montana. Kacsmaryk unquestioningly repeated West Texas A&M University president Walter Wendler’s comparison of drag to blackface to start off the opinion and cited later in his opinion to the far-right, anti-transgender “Gays Against Groomers” group and to anti-CRT, anti-LGBTQ activist Christopher Rufo for their views on drag.

    direct link to the judge's order (26 page PDF)

    and to the case docket on CourtListener

    2 votes