US Politics: The Transition Continues

[Altherion]

Here's an interesting article about Obama's thoughts and actions following the election. I was and still am disappointed in him for not going all "FDR v2.0" in 2009, but I still have to admit he is pretty impressive. I have no doubt that if he could run again, he would have won.

Also, from the previous thread (if somebody knows how to carry over quotes in a less awkward way, please tell me):

@Wrl6199

Quote

Who are you guys talking about?

To expand a little bit on what others have already said, Senator Jeff Sessions is Trump's nominee for Attorney General. When Trump nominated him, various left-wing outlets (Slate, the Huffington Post, etc.) brought all of the old allegations of racism out again, but I don't think it will avail them this time around. Part of it is that the parties have polarized, but part is simply that allegations of racism don't mean as much as they once did -- people have been accusing Trump of it since practically the very beginning of his primary campaign and look how that turned out.

@mormont

Quote

As for the rest, it sure is strange that both parties abandoned these voters and for some reason nobody ever thought about doing this perfectly ethical thing of appealing to racism to win them over. Perhaps... I don't want to get carried away here, but maybe they thought about doing it and then realised it was unethical, so they didn't? It's possible.

Well, anything is possible, but given all of the other highly unethical stuff that these people have done (both collectively and individually), it is extremely unlikely that they didn't do this out of ethical concerns. It is much, much more likely that they didn't do it simply because they didn't think they could make it work for them.

@SkynJay

Quote

That last paragraph is interesting.  Is the Trump administration really going to take advantageof interest  rates and push infrastructure?  Can he get his party on board with this very Democrat plan?  And if so will anyone realize they stonewalled Obama not as a matter of policy but purely for political points?

Will the words 'national debt' be mentioned by the GOP in the next four years?

This is the really interesting question. All of these nominations are at best sideshows. Even if Trump manages to fulfill all of his outlandish promises (i.e. the wall and such), none of it will mean anything if it does not generate good jobs -- and without FDR-like fiscal stimuli, it won't. Rolling back political correctness is a good supplementary strategy, but it will not suffice in and of itself; well-paid jobs are the key. He will almost certainly try to get both Republicans and the Democrats who said that they're willing to be work with him aboard, but it's not clear if he can succeed.

[Wrl6199]

40 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Here's an interesting article about Obama's thoughts and actions following the election. I was and still am disappointed in him for not going all "FDR v2.0" in 2009, but I still have to admit he is pretty impressive. I have no doubt that if he could run again, he would have won.

Also, from the previous thread (if somebody knows how to carry over quotes in a less awkward way, please tell me):

@Wrl6199

To expand a little bit on what others have already said, Senator Jeff Sessions is Trump's nominee for Attorney General. When Trump nominated him, various left-wing outlets (Slate, the Huffington Post, etc.) brought all of the old allegations of racism out again, but I don't think it will avail them this time around. Part of it is that the parties have polarized, but part is simply that allegations of racism don't mean as much as they once did -- people have been accusing Trump of it since practically the very beginning of his primary campaign and look how that turned out.

@mormont

Well, anything is possible, but given all of the other highly unethical stuff that these people have done (both collectively and individually), it is extremely unlikely that they didn't do this out of ethical concerns. It is much, much more likely that they didn't do it simply because they didn't think they could make it work for them.

@SkynJay

This is the really interesting question. All of these nominations are at best sideshows. Even if Trump manages to fulfill all of his outlandish promises (i.e. the wall and such), none of it will mean anything if it does not generate good jobs -- and without FDR-like fiscal stimuli, it won't. Rolling back political correctness is a good supplementary strategy, but it will not suffice in and of itself; well-paid jobs are the key. He will almost certainly try to get both Republicans and the Democrats who said that they're willing to be work with him aboard, but it's not clear if he can succeed.

wait. Why did you start a new thread for this.

[Castel]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

Here's an interesting article about Obama's thoughts and actions following the election. I was and still am disappointed in him for not going all "FDR v2.0" in 2009, but I still have to admit he is pretty impressive. I have no doubt that if he could run again, he would have won.

He certainly has a way of talking cogently about rising problems and he seems determined to be positive. 

His non-platitudinous  statements do paint a nasty picture of a coming crunch though, no matter how he prefaces and ends them with 'we'll need to figure out...", especially since he tacitly admits that crashing shit works.

 

I would pay good money for tape of his staff as the results came in. Or at least a Peter Morgan film.

[IamMe90]

 

Oh, racism and corruption in the legal system is absolutely a big problem as well, and the US's ridiculously high incarceration rate, the war on drugs, etc. The problem can't be solved quickly, though; while there are plenty of blacks (and others) unreasonably incarcerated, even if poverty (or other factors) are the root cause, dangerous criminals are still dangerous criminals. And even eliminating poverty overnight wouldn't eliminate the effects of having lived in poverty; it would probably take generations to fully heal.

That's not how good policy works, IMO. You don't just address interrelated issues piecemeal; you come up with a comprehensive policy that aims to address the various issues which play into each other. Focusing solely on poverty at the expense of other race related issues will not only inhibit the efficacy of a policy to address poverty in the short term, and it also might let other issues fester which could undercut any positive impact that the policy had in the long term. 

[Altherion]

55 minutes ago, Wrl6199 said:

wait. Why did you start a new thread for this.

Because the other one got locked (as all threads do after filling up 20 pages).

[Commodore]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

Part of it is that the parties have polarized, but part is simply that allegations of racism don't mean as much as they once did -- people have been accusing Trump of it since practically the very beginning of his primary campaign and look how that turned out

when everyone's a racist, no one is

the plan to deep six nominees would normally be filibuster and hurl charges of racism/sexism

Harry Reid (idiot) nixed the former, and no one's listening to the latter anymore.

[Altherion]

20 minutes ago, Commodore said:

when everyone's a racist, no one is

the plan to deep six nominees would normally be filibuster and hurl charges of racism/sexism

Harry Reid (idiot) nixed the former, and no one's listening to the latter anymore.

Yes, these are both extremely ironic -- but especially the fact that the people whining about Halloween costumes and the like helped bring Sessions (and even Trump, for that matter) to power. Somebody must have warned them about diluting the power of the accusations, but it must have been too tempting to resist.

[mormont]

So Donald Trump has appointed an Attorney-General who was declined from a previous role over alleged racist comments, who thinks the NAACP is anti-American and who opposes even legal immigration, and the reason for that is... people complaining about racist Halloween costumes.

Do you guys even listen to what you're saying?

[Tijgy]

37 minutes ago, mormont said:

So Donald Trump has appointed an Attorney-General who was declined from a previous role over alleged racist comments, who thinks the NAACP is anti-American and who opposes even legal immigration, and the reason for that is... people complaining about racist Halloween costumes.

Do you guys even listen to what you're saying?

OTOH Sessions apparently also took action to the segregation in schools in Alabama and had no trouble with prosecution the KKK. 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/18/black-belt-voter-fraud-case-alabama-shaped-sen-jeff-sessions-career/94088186/

The whole allegation of racism is based upon 1 case of voter fraud, where apparently people did indeed alter votes with the permission of the voters who were illiterate and elderly and upon some things he apparently said. 

And personally I do think following things are also very important: 

- Sessions at the time said it was more important for him “that people not believe these charges of racial prejudice” than receiving a federal judgeship.

“There is no more important issue for our area than racial harmony,” he said at the time. “The fact that this process has suggested that I and my office have acted otherwise is like a nightmare.”

- He was not well known outside of Mobile but won a bare-knuckled statewide campaign for Alabama Attorney General in 1994. After defeating the Democratic incumbent, Sessions took over and cleaned house of the Democrat’s appointees who were hired outside the state’s merit system.

(It is about the fact he went against the fact people were appointed outside of a merit system, because I honestly believe people should be appointed on their merits not on anything else?)

- “The Senate cannot confirm someone to this post who is going to support and advance a scheme that violates our constitution and eviscerates congressional authority,’’ Sessions said then. “Congress makes the laws, not the president—as every school child knows.’’

I did read here many criticism about the Republicans obstructing Obama, and this is being used as a justification of Obama using his presidential discretion? But Sessions is here not wrong when he tries to defend the separation of powers and the check and balances-principle. It is very dangerous if you do give your president more and more power and the president should be obligated to execute the laws. 

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Tijgy said:

OTOH Sessions apparently also took action to the segregation in schools in Alabama and had no trouble with prosecution the KKK.

This is nothing more than to say he did his job. But reportedly he was unhappy about having to do so.

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

Quote

Figures also testified that on one occasion, when the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division sent the office instructions to investigate a case that Sessions had tried to close, Figures and Sessions "had a very spirited discussion regarding how the Hodge case should then be handled; in the course of that argument, Mr. Sessions threw the file on a table, and remarked, 'I wish I could decline on all of them,'" by which Figures said Sessions meant civil rights cases generally.

Now, that's an old quote and maybe Sessions changed his attitude. But the idea that this in some way supports Sessions isn't tenable. Consider: if he'd declined to take these cases forward, what would have happened?

[butterbumps!]

Jeff Sessions is also not entirely clear on whether grabbing women by the crotch constitutes sexual assault, so there's that too. 

Quote

 

"This was very improper language, and he's acknowledged that," Sessions said last month in St. Louis, according to the magazine.

The reporter pressed him. "But beyond the language, would you characterize the behavior described in that as sexual assault if that behavior actually took place?"

"I don't characterize that as sexual assault,” Session replied. 

"So if you grab a woman by the genitals,” the reporter said, “that's not sexual assault?"

"I don't know. It's not clear that he — how that would occur," Sessions said.

 

though he did issue this followup:

Quote

 

"The Weekly Standard’s characterization of comments I made following Sunday’s Presidential debate is completely inaccurate,” Sessions wrote. “My hesitation was based solely on confusion of the contents of the 2005 tape and the hypothetical posed by the reporter, which was asked in a chaotic post-debate environment. I regret that it resulted in an inaccurate article that misrepresented my views. Of course it is crystal clear that assault is unacceptable. I would never intentionally suggest otherwise‎."

 

no clarification though on whether he believes the Trumpian Pussy Grab is sexual assault.   So yea, the choice of Sessions should instill us with confidence all around.

[Tijgy]

36 minutes ago, mormont said:

This is nothing more than to say he did his job. But reportedly he was unhappy about having to do so.

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

Now, that's an old quote and maybe Sessions changed his attitude. But the idea that this in some way supports Sessions isn't tenable. Consider: if he'd declined to take these cases forward, what would have happened?

And this is the same guy who testified against him during the congressional hearing. 

He is still one of the people responsible for the desegregation of schools in Alabama. This says more about someone than one witness statement. And yeah, you can say he did his job. And this will just mean he will also do his job as AG. What do you want more of him? 

The media are referring to only one case, where he allegedly used some bias against people. For the rest his track record is apparently clean. And that is more important than the things people are saying he said, no? 

There are also several people speaking/spoke for him, like 

“I don’t expect everybody to agree with all my votes, and I don’t agree with all my votes, either, at this point ... and I was asked the other day what vote I regretted, and I couldn’t’ think of one that I wanted to publicly state, but I’m prepared to do that now in response to your question,” Specter said. “My vote against candidate Sessions for the federal court was a mistake.”

Asked why, Specter said, "because I have since found that Sen. Sessions is egalitarian."

http://www.politico.com/story/2009/05/specter-regrets-no-vote-on-sessions-022131

William Smith said Thursday that Sessions hired him as the first African-American Republican chief counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Jeff Sessions is a man of high character and great integrity," Smith said. "Although I pushed the envelope a number of times, not once did Senator Sessions ever say anything to offend me.  Instead, time after time, he stood by me and the conservative causes I was out to support."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/17/jeff-sessions-leading-candidate-trump-attorney-general-choice/94043556/

Those are people who worked constantly with him. So you should certainly take their voices also in account, no?  

And you have also dedication to Rosa Park's memory: 

In 1999, Sessions called successfully for the Alabama native to be given the Congressional gold medal. In doing so, Sessions made a passionate call for lawmakers to renew the principle of equality under the law.

“As legislators, we should work to strengthen the appreciation for this fundamental governing principle by recognizing those who make extraordinary contributions towards ensuring that all American citizens have the opportunity, regardless of their race, sex, creed, or national origin, to enjoy in the freedoms that this country has to offer,” Sessions said, before calling Parks a “living embodiment of this principle.”

A year later, Sessions attached an amendment to an appropriations bill that gave $1 million to Alabama for the Rosa Parks Library, Museum and Learning Center at Troy State University Montgomery Campus as a way of memorializing the Montgomery Bus Boycott, for which Parks’ protest was the impetus.

In 2005, after Parks’ death, Sessions gave a passionate tribute to her on the floor of the Senate, saying “history will remember Rosa Parks for shaking America's conscience and changing the course of our Nation for the better.”

In 2012, Sessions introduced a resolution to the Senate floor, along with Michigan Democratic senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, to observe the 100th anniversary of Parks’ birth.

“Her courage ignited major changes in our nation and lead a revolution in race relations. Mrs. Parks will always be remembered as a courageous individual, who confronted injustice head-on and, in so doing, changed our nation. Her legacy continues to endure,” Sessions said.  

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/18/sessions-well-documented-praise-rosa-parks-belies-racist-claims.html

[mormont]

2 minutes ago, Tijgy said:

And this is the same guy who testified against him during the congressional hearing. 

Yes. Your point being?

2 minutes ago, Tijgy said:

He is still one of the people responsible for the desegregation of schools in Alabama. This says more about someone than one witness statement.

Again, it says that he did his job. And yes, it would be nice to think he'll do his job as AG, but his job as AG is somewhat different and will be more driven by his political views and priorities, which will in turn drive the priorities of the federal government department that he oversees. Sessions makes no secret of what these priorities are, and they are certainly not fighting racism.

2 minutes ago, Tijgy said:

Those are people who worked constantly with him. So you should certainly take their voices also in account, no?  

Absolutely. They're also people who are in favour of his appointment because they agree with his politics and so are more likely to play down and overlook concerns.

Let me ask something: are you denying that any of the things I said about Sessions in my post are true?

[Commodore]

4 hours ago, mormont said:

So Donald Trump has appointed an Attorney-General who was declined from a previous role over alleged racist comments, who thinks the NAACP is anti-American and who opposes even legal immigration, and the reason for that is... people complaining about racist Halloween costumes.

Do you guys even listen to what you're saying?

I'm listening to you dumb down the word racism until it no longer has meaning.

Opposing immigration is not racist (if you've listened to Sessions, you would know his concern is about wage depression, strain on social services, and security breaches).

And you may not agree, but the argument that race based groups, or groups dedicated to advancing a particular race, does not comport with American values, that's not a racist argument.

 

 

[DunderMifflin]

NAACP is pretty sketchy organization, I don't like they are treated with such reverence. 

I mean who the fuk still says "colored people"

[Dr. Pepper]

12 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

NAACP is pretty sketchy organization, I don't like they are treated with such reverence. 

I mean who the fuk still says "colored people"

It's no surprise that someone like you would object to an organization that began as one to make life better for blacks.  There's a long history of people doing that with black organizations.  You identify the black org as 'sketchy', 'racist', 'nationalist', 'terrorist' and suddenly delegitimized their mission.  It's a racists' favorite tool.  

The NAACP is over a century old.  Language has obviously evolved since it's inception, just as their mission statement has evolved to include all people.  The name remains as a nod to history.  

[LongRider]

Iowa shows us what privatized Medicaid is all about.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/11/17/editorial-branstads-medicaid-not-working-iowa/93927240/

Quote

Insurers

Then there are the private insurers now managing Iowa's $4.6 million Medicaid program. They negotiated contracts with the state intended to cover the cost of care while allowing them to pocket millions of dollars for administration. Last month, Iowa taxpayers suddenly learned they would be forking over an additional $33 million to the companies this fiscal year.

On Nov. 4, the Cedar Rapids Gazette reported that the chief financial officer of Anthem, Amerigroup’s parent company, indicated the bump in public dollars was not enough. How much more do they want?

“We really are not providing an exact number at this point as we continue to work with the state, and don’t want to get out ahead of the state and negotiate this publicly,” he said during a quarterly earnings call.

Yes, just imagine if the public was privy to what was going on behind the scenes. But the governor has created a situation where insurers paid handsomely with public dollars have essentially no public accountability. They say they’re losing money in Iowa, but refuse to provide financial documentation to the media. Amerigroup would not even provide a reporter information about the percentage of appeals overturned.

Insurers’ pockets are full and their lips are tight. Meanwhile, patients receive denial letters, providers are closing and taxpayers are in the dark. And the governor can take credit for it all.

 

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

I'm listening to you dumb down the word racism until it no longer has meaning.

Well, I don't know about you: but personally, I believe that suggesting that words have nuanced meanings is the very opposite of dumbing them down.

[Dr. Pepper]

The Hamilton cast delivered a message to Mike Pence when he attended the play yesterday.  Basically it was "hey, we're scared.  We hope you uphold American values and protect us."  

Today Trump has not only demanded an apology, but suggested the theater should have been a safe space for Mr. Pence.  Oh, the irony.  

Quote

“The Theater must always be a safe and special place,” Trump tweeted as a follow-up. “The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!”

 

[Martell Spy]

 

Quote

 

The Hamilton cast delivered a message to Mike Pence when he attended the play yesterday.  Basically it was "hey, we're scared.  We hope you uphold American values and protect us."  

Today Trump has not only demanded an apology, but suggested the theater should have been a safe space for Mr. Pence.  Oh, the irony.  

 

Yeah, it's lucky Trump isn't President, yet. It would be deeply embarrassing to us all if our President was acting this way.