U.S. Politics: A Democracy In Decay

[Fragile Bird]

What will Saturday Night Live do?

[BloodRider]

1 hour ago, maarsen said:

I remember civil rights protesters being murdered, churches being firebombed, students on university campuses being shot by a badly regulated militia,  the police routinely beating the snot out of antiwar protesters, and then charging the victims with conspiracy to riot. Any violence was usually the result of massive displays of force and escalation by the police,  to unarmed protesters.  The violence was very much one sided. I was born in the 50's and remember the 60's and 70's quite well.  Being assaulted by the police was common enough that it did not even raise an eyebrow. If your hair was too long or you were thought to be gay it was basically open season for you and no recourse to the justice system as the older generation figured you got what you deserved. I did come away with a healthy disrespect for authority from living through this. Watching a movie about this is not really the same thing. 

Do you think I do not know of this, or that I am failing to give it its due.  I am simply pointing out that at the time the state violence came from the right, the terrorists groups came from the left.  By the 90s it had flipped.  Do you deny that this eas the case?  Because it was the case.  No point in ignoring the bad side of these social movements.  

I don't mean to denigrate your experience, but by the same token, we just talked through the all the parallels to the situation you describe and how it might give rise to violence today.  

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

20% of the constituency is currently in favor of the AHCA, and 60% are strongly opposed.

On some issues you're right, but on a pretty major one you're totally wrong. And my suspicion given Hodkingson's target, is that he falls in that 60% trap.

There was significant disagreement regarding ACA. The exit poll question on it was badly phrased, but 47% said it went too far, 30% said it didn't go far enough and only 18% said it was about right. Thus, there was certainly an impetus to do something about ACA. Of course, given Murphy's law and the fact that the Republicans are no less beholden to the medical and insurance industries than the Democrats, everything they've come up with thus far will have made things worse. However, note that no version of AHCA has become law yet so Congress is not actually disagreeing with their constituents.

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Of course I don't - but that doesn't mean I can't recognize that it may be coming. And even more, understand why it's coming. I would prefer there not be massive uprisings and violence and assassination attempts on politicians, but we are getting closer and closer to the point that you would amusingly desire - the part where people simply have had enough and have nothing left to lose.

When you take away people's ability to survive - when they have no hope for medical care, when they have no hope for justice, when they have no hope for success - they really don't have other options, and that monkeybrain part of them that says they would rather die than face this unfairness is going to rear its head. That isn't me advocating it - that's me describing it.

I think you are being overly dramatic. Nobody is taking away anyone's ability to survive: unlike in previous eras, even the poorest are not actually starving (or at least not on a massive scale). Medical care is unlikely to be reduced below the level at which it was less than a decade ago for anyone and for most it will not be reduced at all. Justice and success are indeed more problematic than before, but it is not obvious whom to fight over them.

There are reasons why people are angry, but a significant part of the recent spate of violence is that a significant fraction of highly visible people (celebrities, activists, etc.) are coming fairly close to the boundary between free speech and outright inciting violence. This has to stop.

[all swedes are racist]

almost hoping ossoff loses just so mothership gets nuked from orbit, but who am i kidding

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Is the ban on video and audio recording of press briefings general or was it just Monday's briefing?  According to this Newsweek article it appears that it may have been a strange, but not a generalized move, by Spicer:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/sean-spicer-press-briefing-no-audio-video-627347%3Famp%3D1

From the article:

"There are days that I'll decide that the president's voice should be the one that speaks and iterate his priorities," Spicer added.

[Inigima]

I don't care really. It is wildly inappropriate and needs to be smacked down. I have no idea how that can be done -- the WH has nothing legal restricting that action, AFAIK, only traditional norms, which we've seen since 2008 aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

[Mexal]

23 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is the ban on video and audio recording of press briefings general or was it just Monday's briefing?  According to this Newsweek article it appears that it may have been a strange, but not a generalized move, by Spicer:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/sean-spicer-press-briefing-no-audio-video-627347%3Famp%3D1

From the article:

 

Except the President didn't take any questions so that's pretty stupid.

[OldGimletEye]

Interesting stuff about gerrymandering:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/19/why-the-supreme-courts-decision-to-review-wisconsins-gerrymandering-is-such-a-big-deal/

Quote

The Supreme Court will hear a case on political gerrymandering that could reshape the way states draw their congressional districts for decades to come.

Last year a federal court found that Wisconsin's congressional districts, created by the state's Republican lawmakers and signed into law by Gov. Scott Walker (R), were unconstitutionally drawn to disadvantage Democratic voters.

 

Quote

The first piece of evidence for this is in the imbalance between the statewide popular vote and the partisan makeup of the Wisconsin Assembly: in 2012, Republican candidates earned 48.6 percent of the statewide popular vote. But because of how they had drawn district boundaries the prior year, they won more than 60 percent of the Assembly seats.

 

Quote

That's what Wisconsin Republicans have pleaded before the courts. They've said that the geography of the state's population disadvantages Democrats in a way that can't be helped: Democrats tend to cluster in big cities such as Milwaukee and Madison. That makes it harder for people drawing districts to avoid either splitting them up or packing them all together.

Yes, I'm sure our dear old beloved Republican Party really wrung it's hands over this but just couldn't do anything about it.

...........................................................

Just because it’s good for Goldman Sachs, doesn’t mean it’s good for everyone else. I know that’s a shocker, but you know……….
 

Anyway,

Quote

Last week, the U.S. Treasury published the first of four reports designed to implement the seven core principles for regulating the U.S. financial system announced in President Trump’s Executive Order 13772 (February 3, 2017). The 147-page report focuses on depositories. Future reports are slated to address “markets, liquidity, central clearing, financial products, asset management, insurance, and innovation, among other key areas.”

 

Quote

Unfortunately, at least when considering the largest banks, our conclusion is that adopting the Treasury’s recommendations would sacrifice resilience to achieve cost reductions, yet with little prospect for boosting economic growth. At times, the proposals read more like a financial industry wish-list (see, for example, here) than a desirable and impartial balancing of the country’s needs for both a vibrant and resilient financial system.

 

Quote

Perhaps the fundamental problem with the Treasury report is the weakness of its two key premises: (1) that post-crisis financial regulation (particularly Dodd-Frank) has impeded bank lending, making it an important contributor to the weakness of the recovery; and (2) concern that “an excess of capital” in the banking sector “will detract from the flow of consumer and commercial credit and can inhibit economic growth.”............

By 2016, credit to GDP exceeded the average reached in 2005, a year of abundant credit supply that helped fuel the financial crisis. Consequently, despite Dodd-Frank’s well-known compliance costs and distortions, there is little evidence that, since it was enacted in July 2010, it has held back overall bank lending.

..........................................

Interesting stuff about prejudice:

Quote

In a new working paper, Princeton University economists David Arnold and Will Dobbie and Harvard Law School’s Crystal S. Yang seek to tease out prejudice from reasonableness by looking at bail judges. They use administrative court data from Miami and Philadelphia and find evidence of significant racial bias. They argue, however, that the evidence they find isn’t prejudice so much as it is “racially biased prediction errors.” What’s the difference? Their research leads them to conclude that some of the judges are making faulty decisions due to a systemic lack of accurate information based on stereotypes that drive bail decisions rather than on obvious prejudice.

.........................

I’ve always said, when conservatives screw you over, they really screw you over:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/despite-its-other-failures-gop-poised-move-courts-the-right

Quote

“The courts – of all the things that we should be able to accomplish with this president and this Senate – the courts have the longest reach into the future,” McConnell said. “We have a significant number of vacancies coming into this administration. The president knows this is a way to have an impact on our country far beyond his tenure in office.”

That wasn’t just an applause line; it had the benefit of being true. Many conservatives who recognized Trump’s profound flaws last year voted for him anyway because they wanted to move the judiciary to the far-right, and they knew a Republican White House and a Republican Senate could deliver, filling vacancies McConnell created by blocking Obama-era nominees.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

47 minutes ago, Inigima said:

I don't care really. It is wildly inappropriate and needs to be smacked down. I have no idea how that can be done -- the WH has nothing legal restricting that action, AFAIK, only traditional norms, which we've seen since 2008 aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

I absolutely agree.  I'm just trying to figure out if this is a full time ban or a one off?

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 7:44 PM, ThinkerX said:

I have been saying (and posting) this for years.  Real easy to see that top 20% sliding enmass into the Republican Camp and doing everything they can to protect that status.  More, they have a point.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-hoarding-of-the-american-dream/ar-BBCKMQq?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=msnclassic

 

 

I have a hard time seeing this. I think a large majority require two incomes to make the top 20% (which is around $100k) something like 5% of individuals and 17% of households fall into that category.  Which means mid level jobs, usually requiring college educations (in the 40-75K ranges) and  likely people under 50 as well.

And let me just say, as a person who will crack that point for the first time this year, it's actually not a lot of money, depending on where you live, the size of your family, and even your age/goals.  (location being one of the biggest factors, really)  [for me, it's paying off that 30 yr mortgage in under 20, so I can retire debt free]

I just can't see people who have been a large part of the liberal demographic going to the Republican side.  Maybe the top 10%?, but certainly not the top 20.

[Jo498]

They do not need to slide into the Republican camp to keep their status/benefits. The 99-75% or so have kept their status for several decades regardless of red or blue majorities/presidents.

[Fez]

Really hope Ossoff wins tonight, but something to keep in mind:

Also; I'm not sure if Ossoff winning would put the breaks on ACA repeal or galvanize action the way Scott Brown's special election win did for Democrats back in 2010. But there's no way to game that out; a win, even if its mostly symbolic would really help right now.

[Zorral]

Has anyone here read Sinclair Lewis's 1935 political warning novel, that begins with the Pres cons for the election of 1936?

It is filled with characters who keep saying, "It's not that bad, it's never been that bad, it won't be that bad and, of course the title line -- It Can't Happen Here.

All Lewis does is take what is there in the year he wrote the novel, including media and newspapers, and every thing else that we have, including the snake oil charlatans harnessing the religious, racist and sexist tendencies and give them the candidate they want who allows them to unleash their hate.

This novel, despite what some readers want, does not have a happy ending, including for the narrator, who was too smart and cynical to actually do more than write snarky editorials as the forces coalesced, while in spite of that, the forces of his local capitalist and elite groups, still realized he would go along to get along.  Until that wasn't allowed any longer.  And no those people who voted the fascists in actually didn't get their $4000 cash up front and good jobs, and the very wealthy were not limited to $500,000, etc.  But the educated people who knew stuff -- they went to concentration camps.

It Can't Happy Here is more informed by the fear of bolshevism than we are now.  Yet, somehow, Russia is still the player.

In the meantime we're now in hurricane and tropical storm season without a head of Fema or NOAA -- and no funding for FEMA either.

 

 

[Crazydog7]

If Osssoff wins the Democrats can (for once) congratulate themselves for not losing but even if he wins the Republicans will say that the Democrats bought themselves the best seat that money could buy.  I cannot believe the price tag associated with this race and do think there are better things for the DNC to do with their money. 

[denstorebog]

16 minutes ago, Crazydog7 said:

I cannot believe the price tag associated with this race and do think there are better things for the DNC to do with their money. 

There will be a certain return of investment. If Ossoff wins, the cost will be offset by an immediate increase in donations for upcoming elections. You'll probably see a torrent of emails in the days after from upcoming Dem candidates trying to capitalize on the victory, and it will work to some extent. No idea how much of the investment will be recouped, though.

If Ossoff loses, though, it will have been a piss poor investment, because not only will the money be gone, there will also be a decrease in donations in the near future. Still, I think the DNC had to go all-in on this one.

[Fez]

14 minutes ago, Crazydog7 said:

If Osssoff wins the Democrats can (for once) congratulate themselves for not losing but even if he wins the Republicans will say that the Democrats bought themselves the best seat that money could buy.  I cannot believe the price tag associated with this race and do think there are better things for the DNC to do with their money. 

 

Republicans have spent just as much, so its break-even in that sense. Also, its arguable about the DNC. Not that much of Ossoff's funding has come from the DNC itself, but spending a couple million here in the hopes that Ossoff winning will boost recruiting and fundraising efforts for 2018 is a worthwhile goal.

This is the one special election that the DCCC has spent a lot of money on; and as I've said before, they literally do not have anything better to do with their money right now. And Ossoff has also raised a huge amount of money on his own from donors.

[Fez]

Of course, when even the weather conspires against you...

 

[IheartIheartTesla]

The main result of this election (if Ossoff wins) is for Republicans to re-calibrate their approach vis-a-vis Trump. There are a lot of reluctant Trumpers in GA-6, so the GOP will have to reevaluate whether they fully go with his agenda or push back against some/most of it.

Unfortunately, my personal opinion is that Handel will narrowly squeak out a victory. Just too many uncertainties in polling, and the race has become tighter in the last week (very similar to what happened with Trump and Clinton).

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Senate GOP Ramping Up For Obamacare Repeal As Early As Next Week...

 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/19/sources-senate-gop-prepared-for-obamacare-repeal-vote-next-week-239726?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

/They are writing it in invisible ink. 

[Week]

15 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Senate GOP Ramping Up For Obamacare Repeal As Early As Next Week...

 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/19/sources-senate-gop-prepared-for-obamacare-repeal-vote-next-week-239726?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

/They are writing it in invisible ink. 

So, no need for a CBO score (or score/analysis from any thinktank on the Right or Left) ...