U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition

[Mexal]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tim-kaine-changes-course-on-tpp-after-vp-nod/

Time Kaine has officially changed his position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I think this is a mistake, and it could backfire big time on Kaine and Clinton. A lot of people, including myself, believe that Clinton is being dishonest when she says she no longer supports the trade deal. Kaine only reinforces that when he changes his stance the day after being selected to be Clinton's VP when just less than a week ago he was publicly praising the deal. 

Not really sure what was expected. The Clinton and Sanders campaign worked out the Democratic platform and this was one of the things they agreed on. They have to change their stance based on the agreements they made with the Sanders' campaign. I don't see how this is dishonest. Looks rather like a compromise to me, something we should be praising her on.

[TrackerNeil]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

A lot of people, including myself, believe that Clinton is being dishonest when she says she no longer supports the trade deal. 

Clinton has been accused of such rampant dishonesty that I think we should all just assume that any position she takes on anything, ever, is a lie. If she says the sky is blue we'd better go to a window and check. 

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

Well, of course she could, because there is no legal bar to someone who is the spouse of a Supreme Court justice having any other particular position in the government, elected or otherwise.

Whether or not a Justice whose spouse was a member of a legislature who had voted on a law should automatically recuse himself/herself from any case involving such law would depend on the ethical rules of the bar association, I suppose. Have justices ever recused themselves because of a perceived conflict involving a spouse's occupation in the past?

I know Thomas gets a lot of flack from liberals sometimes for not recusing himself in cases related to his wife's work. But I don't know if there are any legitimate conflicts of interest there or if its just people making assumptions because they don't like him. She does lobbying on a lot of conservative issues, but Thomas is incredibly conservative all on his own so I'm not sure if there's anything there.

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

Well, of course she could, because there is no legal bar to someone who is the spouse of a Supreme Court justice having any other particular position in the government, elected or otherwise.

Whether or not a Justice whose spouse was a member of a legislature who had voted on a law should automatically recuse himself/herself from any case involving such law would depend on the ethical rules of the bar association, I suppose. Have justices ever recused themselves because of a perceived conflict involving a spouse's occupation in the past?

You could look at Clarence Thomas as a counter-example. He did not recuse himself from ruling on the ACA even though his wife was an anti-ACA lobbyist.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

54 minutes ago, Shryke said:

And if he didn't, the same thing would be true. There's no working around this narrative.

Maybe, but I think he may have been better off taking the hit for supporting TPP than open himself up to accusations of dishonesty and political expediency. 

48 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

I don't get the logic. 

If you think that Clinton is being dishonest in opposing the trade deal (ie: that she really supports it) how does it "reinforce" your belief now that she is forcing her VP, who previously supported the deal, to also oppose it with her? 

I believe that Tim Kaine still supports the deal, but is being pressured to change his stance due to the negative backlash his announcement received from Sanders supporters. He's supported it for years, and did so as late as last Thursday publicly, and yet on Saturday he had an entirely new stance. It would be one thing if he had received new information that would cause him to reevaluate his position, but that's not the case. It was for political expediency, and I believe that's also why Clinton changed her stance. And frankly, that's what most of the political and punditry class believes too. 

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

Not really sure what was expected. The Clinton and Sanders campaign worked out the Democratic platform and this was one of the things they agreed on. They have to change their stance based on the agreements they made with the Sanders' campaign. I don't see how this is dishonest. Looks rather like a compromise to me, something we should be praising her on.

I guess it all boils down to did you change your stance because you had a genuine change of opinion or because you needed votes? I think the latter is a much strong factor in why they now oppose TPP. 

 

[Mexal]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

I guess it all boils down to did you change your stance because you had a genuine change of opinion or because you needed votes? I think the latter is a much strong factor in why they now oppose TPP. 

It's probably the latter but what's the problem here? It's compromise. If you changed your opinion because you were compromising, what's the issue? Isn't that what we want our President to be able to do to get laws passed?

[BloodRider]

12 hours ago, Squab said:

Integrity in modern politics (by no means the worst example):

1. DNC Chair works to support Clinton in primaries against Sanders;
2. Resigns when emails leaked;
3. Clinton hires former DNC Chair.

In an "honorary" position.

Jesus Effing Christ.  Do you not know words?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/honorary

Quote

honorary
[on-uh-rer-ee] 
Spell  Syllables
Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
given for honor only, without the usual requirements, duties, privileges, emoluments, etc.:
The university presented the new governor with an honorary degree.
2.
holding a title or position conferred for honor only:
an honorary president.
3.
(of an obligation) depending on one's honor for fulfillment.
4.
conferring or commemorating honor or distinction.
5.
given, made, or serving as a token of honor :
an honorary gift.

As in 

"For all you exemplary spreading of bullshit in this election to secure the presidency, our new president would like to present to you, Squab with this honorary degree to Trump University.  It is worth exactly as much as the degree others Trump fleeced for 50k."

[BloodRider]

12 hours ago, Guess who's back said:

So DNC brakes federal law and no one cares? Hillary gets away again. Who taught it was a good idea to bring illegal immigrants on the stage? 

Ouch my pseudo-homonyms.

[Swordfish]

17 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Seriously? Fuck that shit right in the ear. 

What is the big picture about making legal car thefts? What is the big picture about legalizing home invasions? Seriously - you know who does home invasions quite a bit? Asshole ex husbands and boyfriends who are trying to intimidate women. Shockingly, I am not going to be acknowledging that making that legal is a good thing, and might have a personal interest in not having ex husbands invade my house legally. So yeah, fuck that. 

Come on, man.  it's painfully obvious I'm talking about ending the war on drugs, and not legalizing car theft and home invasion.

Perhaps you could argue in some kind of good faith about things I've actually stated?

 

Quote

I also don't know about what specific position you're ascribing to me that I'm defending that HRC shares. I'm in favor of a lot of decriminalization or outright legalization of most drugs - particularly party drugs. Opioids are a problem regardless, just like they were in China when 1/4th of the population was addicted to them - that's not a good thing. That isn't HRC's position that I'm defending to my knowledge. I am also in favor of massive overhaul of the criminal system and revisiting every single person that is in jail and seeing if they can be released early. That also isn't HRC's position. So instead of arguing with some mythical persona that you've constructed of me,

 

Sorry man, i stand by my observation.  i don't know you, so I can only base my opinions on what i see you post here, and what i see is you knee jerking to defend any real or perceived slight against HRC.  Why else would you have spent so much time here trying to downplay the positive impact of ending the war on drugs, which is a policy you actually agree with?  And thats simply one example. Your absolute, over the top, all out  war on Sandersis another great example.

I am inclined to believe that this bias is not intentional, but that doesn't change the fact that it certainly appears, to an outsider, to be the case.

I'm not even the only one to have noticed it.  And if I recall correctly, the other person was an HRC supporter.

 

[TerraPrime]

18 hours ago, Maester Drew said:

That's why I said he could have done more to reach across the aisle. I am well aware that many Republicans have tried to obstruct Obama, however that mostly stems from the Tea Party. Oh, and who is "they"? Because IIRC it was only one person that called out "Liar!" at the State of the Union. And it was my ridiculous Senator that shut down the government, and not even the GOP leadership was happy with that stunt.

 

You're either forgetful of the sequence of events or you were not paying attention.

Obama let the 2 yellow dog Democrat Sentors (Bachus from Nebraska and forgot who else) take the PPACA plan to 2 Republican senators for a month to work out compromises. That was in early summer at the height of the death panel hype. After the 4 of them reached a compromised version, the rest of the GOP wouldn't even read it. That's what the GOP party is/was like.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I believe that Tim Kaine still supports the deal, but is being pressured to change his stance due to the negative backlash his announcement received from Sanders supporters. He's supported it for years, and did so as late as last Thursday publicly, and yet on Saturday he had an entirely new stance. It would be one thing if he had received new information that would cause him to reevaluate his position, but that's not the case. It was for political expediency, and I believe that's also why Clinton changed her stance. And frankly, that's what most of the political and punditry class believes too. 

I guess it all boils down to did you change your stance because you had a genuine change of opinion or because you needed votes? I think the latter is a much strong factor in why they now oppose TPP. 

 

Tywin, yeah... but so what? What's your actual objection? You oppose the TPP. Clinton opposes the TPP, in her head if not her heart. If Clinton's opposition is born out of political calculation, isn't it BETTER that she force her running mate to adopt the same position? Doesn't that show you how committed she is to taking this position? Isn't she doubling down on the same position you hold? 

Are you suggesting that the alternative was better? That you'd rather Clinton have a running mate that was going around and actively undermining her position on TPP - which, lest we forget - is still the position you support? Do you want Clinton to have a running mate that is actively opposing what you want to happen? I don't get it. This is clearly the best outcome for achieving the policy goal you want. The other outcome - that Clinton has a VP taking the wrong position on this issue - is demonstrably worse. Why are you still griping? 

[Swordfish]

16 hours ago, Fez said:

I wouldn't want her running for President, at least not for a long while, but I'd be happy to see Michelle Obama run for Congress (presumably a senate seat). Maybe go for Durbin's whenever he retires.

It was a really good speech. And between some combination of factors, it went off without a hitch. It seemed like there was almost a chant at one point, but it was drowned out very quickly. There actually are very few vocal hecklers at this point. So few that I hope after the roll call tomorrow they're told that if they do anything more they'll have their credentials revoked.

 

Totes.  Can't have any open disagreement with the political machine.  it's simply uncouth, and must be suppressed.

Do you work for the DNC by chance?

 

15 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Arrrgghh...just watched a Bernie supporter who stated she, "Would trust Bernie if he told her to do something" but she wouldn't actually vote for Clinton...even though he just gave an impassioned speech on what he wanted his supporters to do...

 

Yeah.  Too bad we don't have more sheep who simply line up and do what they are told to do by politicians, MIRITE?

 

9 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

I cant say enough how impressed I was with Michelle Obama.  Walked up like a Chief and the Bernie fan boos stopped only to pick back up when she left.

The part where she was like you cant have a child who is prone to temper tantrums in charge of the military and nuclear codes was chillingly convincing.

I really hope she decides to get into politics at some point.

You would think that in a democratic nation of 300+ million people we would not need to keep going back to the same three families to get our leaders.  

Another way to say this is that you would assume, at this point, that we would be smart enough to not base our opinions about who is qualified to govern based on how well they can recite a speech that someone wrote for them, and not based on any actual qualifications or proven ability to govern.

But I suppose I'm just a hopeless romantic in this regard.

 

 

 

[Altherion]

32 minutes ago, Mexal said:

It's probably the latter but what's the problem here? It's compromise. If you changed your opinion because you were compromising, what's the issue? Isn't that what we want our President to be able to do to get laws passed?

The problem is that if the only reason they've changed their opinion is because they need votes, there's nothing stopping them from changing it right back the moment they no longer need votes. I'm reasonably confident that Clinton will back TTP and TTIP again very soon after she is elected, probably with the excuse that she has made some changes to them and now they're good again.

[Kalbear]

11 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The problem is that if the only reason they've changed their opinion is because they need votes, there's nothing stopping them from changing it right back the moment they no longer need votes. I'm reasonably confident that Clinton will back TTP and TTIP again very soon after she is elected, probably with the excuse that she has made some changes to them and now they're good again.

This doesn't typically happen with politicians, like, at all. In general 80% of the policies that were promised get delivered. The 20% that don't usually are stopped, but are at least attempted. 

The hullaballo about it is such bullshit anyway. But the notion that Clinton won't kill it when she's said she'll kill it would be political suicide in 4 years time. It is exactly the sort of thing that opponents hold against you. So far Clinton hasn't done anything like that in her career, ever.

[DunderMifflin]

22 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 

You would think that in a democratic nation of 300+ million people we would not need to keep going back to the same three families to get our leaders.  

Another way to say this is that you would assume, at this point, that we would be smart enough to not base our opinions about who is qualified to govern based on how well they can recite a speech that someone wrote for them, and not based on any actual qualifications or proven ability to govern.

But I suppose I'm just a hopeless romantic in this regard.

Considering that empires have conducted themselves with hereditary rule and even modern day businesses and careers often tend to have family dynasties its not that shocking. Sometimes it's nepotism, more often than not it's someone taking advantage of being close and witnessing how a particular business is done. 

Also i find it a bit dismissive to claim that Michelle Obama has no political experience after the last 8 years of her life.

for me personally I'm not a type of person that clings onto a candidate and would rather die than admit my candidate has any sort of weakness. So for me saying I'd give her support if she ran right now only means that. It doesn't mean I wouldnt create some sort of -Hillary has never done anything wrong no matter what -character out of myself.

 

 

[Mexal]

18 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The problem is that if the only reason they've changed their opinion is because they need votes, there's nothing stopping them from changing it right back the moment they no longer need votes. I'm reasonably confident that Clinton will back TTP and TTIP again very soon after she is elected, probably with the excuse that she has made some changes to them and now they're good again.

It's been agreed upon and added to the Democratic platform. It's the platform they're running on. I get your point but this is all speculation. They're running on being against the TPP, that's what we should assume, not that they're lying and will change their mind after they win and go back on the promises they made and the platform they agreed upon.

[Fez]

28 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 

Totes.  Can't have any open disagreement with the political machine.  it's simply uncouth, and must be suppressed.

Do you work for the DNC by chance?

Considering delegates are supposed to be part of the political machine, no, you can't. If they want to protest, they're free to do so; outside the convention hall.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

25 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The problem is that if the only reason they've changed their opinion is because they need votes, there's nothing stopping them from changing it right back the moment they no longer need votes. I'm reasonably confident that Clinton will back TTP and TTIP again very soon after she is elected, probably with the excuse that she has made some changes to them and now they're good again.

The conventional wisdom at the moment is that Obama is going to try to get TPP passed through a lame-duck Congress after the elections have passed and while it's still controlled by Republicans. Essentially, he'll take the hit for Clinton and pass what he thinks is a necessary trade deal that the Republican party wants (even if Trump doesn't).  

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

Considering delegates are supposed to be part of the political machine, no, you can't. If they want to protest, they're free to do so; outside the convention hall.

Yeah.  And as part of the political machine, theya re supposed to actively participate.  

 

I get it though.Gotta keep the unwashed masses out of such a dignified event.  Can;t have a bunch of bad apples upsetting the esteemed coronation ceremonies after all.

[DunderMifflin]

50 Bernie supporters were put in handcuffs outside the DNC last night for protesting. After bypassing a great wall that is supposed to be a thing Democrats scoff at.  I'm not sure being a delegate would afford them more of a right to protest outside the building.