U.S. Politics: From Russia, With Love

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 

/Shocker

[Gorn]

9 hours ago, Commodore said:

Bernie only cares about class warfare, and will otherwise take any position on social issues that alienates the fewest people.

And he's right to do so politically. But the Tom Perezes of the world would rather make it about identity politics, and that is a nonstarter for WWC voters. 

The Omaha mayoral race is a microcosm of this. 

Care to elaborate? Most people do not follow the Omaha mayoral race, or even know it exists.

[butterbumps!]

1 hour ago, Gorn said:

Care to elaborate? Most people do not follow the Omaha mayoral race, or even know it exists.

Sanders endorsed the candidate running even though the candidate is anti-abortion.  Pro-choice is one of the big stances the Democratic party has been taking, so this goes against that.   The argument Sanders (and others) give for being more anti-choice-friendly is that Dems shouldn't be keeping (supposedly) otherwise Democrat-friendly people out of the party over hardline ideological stances like abortion.  Instead, we should focus on economic issues.  It's an argument in favor of putting the social and cultural issues that apparently piss off the "white working class" to the side in order to start winning elections by gathering up more people into the Dem fold.

I think (at least) one problem with this view, though, is that these issues aren't separate from economics.   Reproductive freedoms (as well as what's been lambasted as "identity politics" and so forth) are "economic issues."  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

So, does the DNC have the right to pick whoever it wants as its candidate such that there is no damage to Sander's supporters when they offer support for a "favored" candidate during publicly financed primary elections?  That is the argument attorney's for the DNC have made in an attempt to get the fraud suit pending against the DNC dismissed.  

My position is that if you take public money to run your primaries you open your organization up to public scrutiny and to public standards for the elections you hold with public money (public money never comes without strings):

http://observer.com/2017/05/dnc-lawsuit-presidential-primaries-bernie-sanders-supporters/

From the article:

Later in the hearing, attorneys representing the DNC claim that the Democratic National Committee would be well within their rights to “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.” By pushing the argument throughout the proceedings of this class action lawsuit, the Democratic National Committee is telling voters in a court of law that they see no enforceable obligation in having to run a fair and impartial primary election.

The DNC attorneys even go so far as to argue that the words “impartial” and “evenhanded”—used in the DNC Charter—can’t be interpreted by a court of law. Beck retorted, “I’m shocked to hear that we can’t define what it means to be evenhanded and impartial. If that were the case, we couldn’t have courts. I mean, that’s what courts do every day, is decide disputes in an evenhanded and impartial manner.”

[maarsen]

7 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 

/Shocker

Four legs good. Two legs better.  Pigs look after themselves. 

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

20 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, does the DNC have the right to pick whoever it wants as its candidate such that there is no damage to Sander's supporters when they offer support for a "favored" candidate during publicly financed primary elections?  That is the argument attorney's for the DNC have made in an attempt to get the fraud suit pending against the DNC dismissed.  

My position is that if you take public money to run your primaries you open your organization up to public scrutiny and to public standards for the elections you hold with public money (public money never comes without strings):

http://observer.com/2017/05/dnc-lawsuit-presidential-primaries-bernie-sanders-supporters/

From the article:
 

 

You'd think they would have learned a lesson from the 1986 Alabama governors' race.  When the Dem party selected the candidate the DIDN'T win the primary run-off, the people rebelled and voted in their first Republican governor since reconstruction. While Alabama voted for Repubs at the national level, most state and local races were won by Dems.  Many people felt betrayed by the Dem. party, and this resulted in a major shift in Alabama politics, into a more clearly defined 2 party state, that favored Republicans.

(although I didn't vote in it, as I maintained my home state as residence of record,(in the military) this was the first major political campaign I had witnessed as an adult.  It was pretty insane, especially with the name calling and calling each other "ugly" (by comparing to a bull frog  ) and stuff like that.  I know I will never forget it)

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, Commodore said:

.And he's right to do so politically. But the Tom Perezes of the world would rather make it about identity politics, and that is a nonstarter for WWC voters.  

I guess identity politics only applies to minorities in your mind? Republicans making overt appeals to white people and Christians isn't identity politics? 

i·den·ti·ty pol·i·tics

noun

 

1. a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

29 minutes ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

You'd think they would have learned a lesson from the 1986 Alabama governors' race.  When the Dem party selected the candidate the DIDN'T win the primary run-off, the people rebelled and voted in their first Republican governor since reconstruction. While Alabama voted for Repubs at the national level, most state and local races were won by Dems.  Many people felt betrayed by the Dem. party, and this resulted in a major shift in Alabama politics, into a more clearly defined 2 party state, that favored Republicans.

(although I didn't vote in it, as I maintained my home state as residence of record,(in the military) this was the first major political campaign I had witnessed as an adult.  It was pretty insane, especially with the name calling and calling each other "ugly" (by comparing to a bull frog  ) and stuff like that.  I know I will never forget it)

There's clearly a perception problem for the DNC here.  But, given that we are dealing with elections that are State funded, I really wonder if there is a legal problem for them as well.  Remember, state funds always come with strings... always.

[The guy from the Vale]

33 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I guess identity politics only applies to minorities in your mind? Republicans making overt appeals to white people and Christians isn't identity politics? 

i·den·ti·ty pol·i·tics

noun

 

1. a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.

On that note.

Most interesting is the graphic that displays who Democrats and Republicans think is and isn't discriminated against in the USA. Somehow, against all evidence and historical privilege, Republicans think everybody's about equally discriminated against - except black people, who apparently have it all dandy.

[Fez]

The archives of Trump's Twitter feed are truly the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

36 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

On that note.

Most interesting is the graphic that displays who Democrats and Republicans think is and isn't discriminated against in the USA. Somehow, against all evidence and historical injustice done, Republicans think everybody's about equally discriminated against - except black people, who apparently have it all dandy.

I disagree. The most interesting thing is that Republicans view Christians and transgender people as the two most discriminated groups, and how radically different they react to those the beliefs. They regularly cry out that there's a war on Christianity while actively engage in a war against trans folks. Also, this was funny:

Quote

This approach is akin to civil rights for the Trump coalition, a shift in focus away from groups that Democrats (and the data) view as facing more discrimination and toward groups Republicans believe are more often marginalized. 

 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

36 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

On that note.

Most interesting is the graphic that displays who Democrats and Republicans think is and isn't discriminated against in the USA. Somehow, against all evidence and historical privilege, Republicans think everybody's about equally discriminated against - except black people, who apparently have it all dandy.

I guess that graph is very interesting for a number of reasons. That Republicans don't believe blacks are descriminated against is very illuminating, but then it may depend on the question. Definitely in a lot of conservative thinking there is the idea that criticism of any african american culture is deemed as racist and so black people are protected in a way that everyone else isn't. This seems to be a common view among some republicans. There is probably an element of truth to it, but the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. 

That could also apply to the democratic viewpoint, which I'd say probably over estimates the level of discrimination against other groups and so alienates anyone who falls somewhere in the middle of the debate. 

[denstorebog]

Nvm, not worth it.

[Week]

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I guess that graph is very interesting for a number of reasons. That Republicans don't believe blacks are descriminated against is very illuminating, but then it may depend on the question. Definitely in a lot of conservative thinking there is the idea that criticism of any african american culture is deemed as racist and so black people are protected in a way that everyone else isn't. This seems to be a common view among some republicans. There is probably an element of truth to it, but the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. 

That could also apply to the democratic viewpoint, which I'd say probably over estimates the level of discrimination against other groups and so alienates anyone who falls somewhere in the middle of the debate. 

This is how we continue on with the status quo. Nothing to see here. Everyone please move on. The truth is in the middle, but really democrats are the mean ones. ffs

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

9 minutes ago, Week said:

This is how we continue on with the status quo. Nothing to see here. Everyone please move on. The truth is in the middle, but really democrats are the mean ones. ffs

When you have highly partisan hysterical people on both sides of a debate the truth usually is somewhere in the middle.

[denstorebog]

For those watching and counting votes:

Rep. Dan Newhouse (Wash.) will not be in D.C. for today's vote due to a family emergency, his office said Thursday.

That means Republicans can only afford 21 defections and still pass the bill, assuming no Democrats throw their support behind the measure. 

[Mexal]

29 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

For those watching and counting votes:

 

 

They have the votes.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

They have the votes.

Shit, that's what I was afraid of. Been seeing a ton of Twitter feeds pushing for phonecalls to on the fence Congress Critters all day yesterday and this morning. Seems the reports of its' death were greatly exaggerated. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Shit, that's what I was afraid off. Been seeing a ton of Twitter feeds pushing for phonecalls to on the fence Congress Critters all day yesterday and this morning. Seems the reports of its' death were greatly exaggerated.

Well it DoA once it hits the Senate, so there's that. 

[Mexal]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Shit, that's what I was afraid of. Been seeing a ton of Twitter feeds pushing for phonecalls to on the fence Congress Critters all day yesterday and this morning. Seems the reports of its' death were greatly exaggerated. 

At this point, there are 18 Nos so they can afford 4 more defections. From everything I'm reading, they seem confident they have the votes.