U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

39 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Yup. Which is why, last I heard, they had stopped anti-TPP language from being inserted into the Democratic Party platform. Obama is gonna take the bullet for Clinton by being the one to pass the thing and the party will give him cover for it in the platform by not opposing it at the party level. So Clinton gets to say she's against it and it still passes.

Do you believe that if Clinton could have her druthers that she'd sign the bill as president? If so, doesn't what you've laid out above, which I believe is accurate, bother you? 

 

[Shryke]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Do you believe that if Clinton could have her druthers that she'd sign the bill as president? If so, doesn't what you've laid out above, which I believe is accurate, bother you? 

I don't think she'd sign it because of public pressure. Which is why Obama will do everything he can to make it happen before hand.

Does it bother me? Not really. It's not like Obama wasn't elected to broker exactly these kind of deals. That's part of the job. And it's not like anyone else needed to finalise the thing wasn't' also elected at some point for exactly this kind of thing to. The alternative interpretation involves the same kind of tortured logic that is leaving a seat empty on the Supreme Court.

And just generally I think the intersection between members of the public who oppose the TPP and members of the public who actually know anything about the TPP is quite small.

[Swordfish]

9 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I think prince Charles is fit to be King of a constitutional monarchy. Which I have to believe who his relatives are help in that. Not just in that he inherits the title but just being around that his whole life is an advantage over someone else not related to the windsees. Not that it's that hard of a job to begin with.

Experience via close observation isn't the ultimate decider of qualifications but I think it isnt to be easily dismissed either.

 

Does the first lady have security clearance?  I'm honestly not sure.

Either way, what do you mean by 'observance'?  Is there some reason to believe Michelle O has been sitting in on the active governance of the country?  or are you just referring basically to pillow talk? 

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

She may not openly break her promise, but she'll find a way to have it done (e.g. Obama can do it and she'll say that it's a done deal and she isn't touching it) and she'll support the TTIP which is not receiving much attention now. She has done this before:

 

That was probably Bernies fault.

[Altherion]

It would be really, really interesting if TPP doesn't come to pass. This would be the first serious defeat for neoliberalism in American that I've personally seen (Brexit doesn't count since it was in the UK). However, I'll believe it when I see it.

Also, people have been talking a lot about Putin and Trump, but Time has an interesting article about Putin's history with Clinton. Here are a few quotes:

Quote

 

In December 2011, Vladimir Putin came closer than he’s ever been to losing his hold on power. His decision that year to run for a third term as Russia’s President had inspired a massive protest movement against him. Demonstrations calling for him to resign were attracting hundreds of thousands of people across the country. Some of his closest allies had defected to the opposition, causing a split in the Kremlin elites, and Russian state media had begun to warn of a revolution in the making.

At a crisis meeting with his advisers on Dec. 8 of that year, the Russian leader chose to lay the blame on one meddling foreign diplomat: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“She set the tone for certain actors inside the country; she gave the signal,” Putin said of Clinton at the time, accusing her of ordering the opposition movement into action like some kind of revolutionary sleeper cell. “They heard this signal and, with the support of the U.S. State Department, started actively doing their work.”

 

Of course, Putin has exactly the same motivation to blame the US as the DNC does to blame Russia and if anything it is much stronger in intensity because after the end of the USSR, Russia has become rather tangential to most Americans, but America is still quite relevant to most Russians. Thus, it could be that Putin had merely found somebody to hate as a means of shoring up support for his party in which case he probably doesn't care one way or another about Clinton. However, if he genuinely believes that she attempted to foment a rebellion against his rule, he will almost certainly be willing to release a few emails if this serves to keep her from power.

[DunderMifflin]

6 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Does the first lady have security clearance?  I'm honestly not sure.

Either way, what do you mean by 'observance'?  Is there some reason to believe Michelle O has been sitting in on the active governance of the country?  or are you just referring basically to pillow talk? 

I'm saying that First Lady IS a political job. Regardless if you are paid or elected, it just is.

I'm not saying everyone in the world has experience in their husband/wife's job, but this is a bit different than not having experience in your spouses factory job or having experience as a bank teller just because your wife is one.

First Lady is a "job" directly tied to the president of the United states and IMO it definately counts as having political experience.

[mormont]

5 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It would be really, really interesting if TPP doesn't come to pass. This would be the first serious defeat for neoliberalism in American that I've personally seen (Brexit doesn't count since it was in the UK).

I think you'll find Brexit doesn't count because it isn't a defeat for neoliberalism.

[Hereward]

Brexit isn't necessarily, or even probably, a defeat for neo-liberalism. It is, however, a necessary precondition for a defeat of neo-liberalism (in the unlikely event the Labour Party gets its act together)

[Swordfish]

19 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I'm saying that First Lady IS a political job. Regardless if you are paid or elected, it just is.

I'm not saying everyone in the world has experience in their husband/wife's job, but this is a bit different than not having experience in your spouses factory job or having experience as a bank teller just because your wife is one.

First Lady is a "job" directly tied to the president of the United states and IMO it definately counts as having political experience.

Of course it's a job.  I've never suggested otherwise. I think you are conflating 'politics' with 'governance'.

I asked you specifically what parts of her executing the job of first lady in the past 8 years qualify her to govern.  it's possible they exist, but 'tied to the president'  and 'gave a good speech last night' fall a little short for me, and that's really all I've seen so far from you guys.

YMMV, naturally.

 

[Altherion]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

I think you'll find Brexit doesn't count because it isn't a defeat for neoliberalism.

Touché. Alright, an expression of rage against neoliberalism which may or may not work out as intended.

[DunderMifflin]

17 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Of course it's a job.  I've never suggested otherwise. I think you are conflating 'politics' with 'governance'.

I asked you specifically what parts of her executing the job of first lady in the past 8 years qualify her to govern.  it's possible they exist, but 'tied to the president'  and 'gave a good speech last night' fall a little short for me, and that's really all I've seen so far from you guys.

YMMV, naturally.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with conflating governance and politics when speaking of experience. Politics is certainly a huge part of governance. 

Technically no one has experience being the President until they are elected to the position. Plenty of people have some sort of similar experience. Not that I'm saying Michelle should go directly for the presidency before starting out with a lesser position, or that it's even plausible.

[Shryke]

I'm not really sure TPP is much about Neo-Liberalism either since the main driving force behind the US passing it is related to US power in asia more then it is trade.

I guess those against it frame it in terms of trade though, so who knows.

[The Anti-Targ]

Most people who know anything substantial about TPP are either ambivalent about it or supportive to one degree or another. I assume Clinton knows a decent amount about TPP and as she's quite ideologically aligned with Obama one can only conclude her actual view is ambivalence at worst. Which means her opposition to TPP is political pandering, which is a black mark against her IMO.

And indeed the USA not passing TPP hands China a lot more influence in the region. So if the US sees China as a rival for power and influence (which it would be stupid not to) then passing TPP helps to make the USA more relevant.

[Squab]

4 hours ago, BloodRider said:

In an "honorary" position.

Jesus Effing Christ.  Do you not know words?

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

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."

Thank you, if it weren't just an example, I would add it to my collection. I just wish it were as honorable as giving someone a role (even an honorary one) in a presidential campaign for their inability to remain impartial.

As you like definitions: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cronyism?s=t

Quote

cronyism

[kroh-nee-iz-uh m] /ˈkroʊ niˌɪz əm/

SpellSyllables

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com

noun

1.

the practice of favoring one's close friends, especially in political appointments.

As in

"The appointment of Debbie Wasserman Schultz to an honorary role in the Clinton presidential campaign is an example of cronyism which is often seen in much of the political class across all spectrums of modern politics"

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, DunderMifflin said:

I don't think there's anything wrong with conflating governance and politics when speaking of experience. Politics is certainly a huge part of governance. 

Technically no one has experience being the President until they are elected to the position. Plenty of people have some sort of similar experience. Not that I'm saying Michelle should go directly for the presidency before starting out with a lesser position, or that it's even plausible.

Frankly, I have no idea what you ARE saying at this point.  Probably best to simply move on.....

 

[Swordfish]

4 hours ago, Mexal said:

Yes, actively participate by passing a platform, not booing every mention of the nominee. They're not entitled to get everything they want. Like all politics, you compromise and both campaigns did which is why the platform has elements of both including a lot from Sanders, making it the most liberal platform ever. These protestors are just greedy and actively hurting the party which may lead them to getting Trump, meaning they get none of what they want.

I suppose you would also like them to stay the hell off your lawn, yes?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Sometimes I think it's necessary to listen to what the other side has to say. Needless to say, I wasn't at all convinced, but it wasn't really designed to convince me. It's really just a bunch of right-wing fnords and shibboleth's that don't affect me at all. I'd like to think 'my' side is more logical, but I suspect that the average anti-Trump video will have the same effect on a right-winger.

[Kalbear]

Bill Clinton is apparently still writing his speech. I am terrified of what he is going to say.

[The Anti-Targ]

50 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Sometimes I think it's necessary to listen to what the other side has to say. Needless to say, I wasn't at all convinced, but it wasn't really designed to convince me. It's really just a bunch of right-wing fnords and shibboleth's that don't affect me at all. I'd like to think 'my' side is more logical, but I suspect that the average anti-Trump video will have the same effect on a right-winger.

I believe you owe me some IQ points that I lost after listening to that. It also convinces me that in fact it's not necessary to hear what the other side has to say (either side) unless you are actually part of the campaign and you need to know what the attacks are being aimed at.

The big smoking gun was Hillary saying she wasn't involved in the whole e-mail scandals and hasn't read through the leaked emails? So far the leaked e-mails seem to back up Hillary's claim of not being involved. So why was that clip such a big deal?

[Fez]

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Bill Clinton is apparently still writing his speech. I am terrified of what he is going to say.

I'd be more terrified of how long it'll be. Trump took Clinton's record last week, and I'm sure the Big Dog wants it back. 

Bill's definitely lost a step the past few years, but I think he can still step it up big time in the moment. His speech in 2012 was arguably the highlight of the convention, and it was the same deal, he was writing until the last minute and there was no advance copy to give to reporters.