U.S. Politics: There's Identity Politics, On Many Sides

[Maithanet]

15 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

No.  There has been talk of him at the top of a unity ticket with Colorado Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper.  That may be what you saw, and is the height of silly season as the notion is ridiculous.

Very ridiculous.  It's like they're trying to put together a ticket that would be the #2 choice of 90% of the US electorate. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

39 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I like Tim Ryan, but his campaign to oust Pelosi (not to mention his voting history) is not going to endear him to the left.

I agree with everything in the part I snipped. As far as Ryan and Pelosi goes, this is one of the main reasons why I want her to step down. We need the younger Democrats with potentially bright futures to ascend to the major leadership roles, plus as we’ve discussed before, she’s a net negative at this point. But ultimately you’re right, his challenge to her won’t help his cause.

[IamMe90]

8 hours ago, Shryke said:

You seem mad. It's funny though that suddenly people who disagree with you are not even liberals anymore. It's the same kind of language Trump uses against the press when they give him bad coverage, so it's lovely to see it coming from you.

People aren't deriding Sanders for running. They are deriding him for sticking around well past when he had already lost and for reinforcing right-wing narratives about his own party's candidate. You know, the kind of shit people criticized Clinton for in 2008.

Yeah, I can get a little over the top after a couple beers.

Here's the thing though, while staying in the race for as long as Sanders did was definitely bad strategy, I don't think seeing out the primary process to its end is worthy of nearly the level of condemnation he receives for it. And it certainly shouldn't be used to deflect having to deal with the Clinton campaign's flaws, and those of the Democratic party writ large. Which, I'm sure you'll say it isn't, but it certainly seems to be used to that effect very often. In fact, the only time I ever see this criticism leveled against Sanders here is as a knee-jerk justification-for Clinton's loss in the general. 

There are plenty of reasons why Clinton lost the general, and while Sanders' decision to stay in the race late may be one of them (I think this effect is dubious, but I won't discount it entirely), it's only one of them. I don't see how it's helpful for the party going forward to focus on this one reason so much, nor do I see how it is helpful for Clinton herself to help keep this discourse going publicly. 

[OldGimletEye]

6 hours ago, Hereward said:

Just saw this. While it is true that contributions are unlimited in the UK, as long as the donor is eligible and the donation is declared, spending by parties and candidates is highly regulated and at an exceptionally low level compared to the US. The entire spend by all parties and candidates at the last election is lower than what was spent on one local race in the last US election cycle. There are also strict limitations on TV and radio advertising, and coverage, to ensure balance and accuracy. 

Thanks for explaining.

Also, for future reference, I found what' seems to be an interesting tool on various countries political spending laws.

http://www.idea.int/

[Kalbear]

21 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

If a candidate reverses direction too quickly, they just seem insincere.  Sanders endorsing Clinton still feels wrong.  If he had done it too quickly, he would have only discredited himself, and lessened the impact.  .

Which is a good argument for him dropping out in March or May. 

Keep in mind that I don't think Sanders is a major reason Clinton lost, but I also don't think he ended up helping the race all that much, and he continues to be a drag on the party in general. 

Reading the CNN review of the book it's clear that clinton will never be able to win against her critics. She's incredibly open and up front about her frustrations and her failures, and naturally people criticize her for saying what she thinks. When she doesn't they think she's too closed. When she says basic stuff they think she's not honest. 

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Yukle said:

This is an area where the USA needs to seriously question why they allow judges to serve for life. A simple rule like Australia's limiting judges to serve only until age 70 may help alleviate this.

First, one of my old advisors would kick my ass if I didn't point out judges do not technically serve for life, but rather "during good behaviour" according to Article III.  Second, most states - 33 to be exact - do have a mandatory retirement age for their judges.  In all but one state the age is between 70 and 75 - Vermont has at 90 which is weird.  Ballotpedia has a quick and easy rundown.

The problem with federal judges is it'd require a constitutional amendment since "good behaviour" is understood to mean for life or removal via impeachment.  And the likelihood of an amendment being passed anytime soon is just about nil.  If one party introduced an amendment to say puppies are cute, the opposing party would begin a campaign highlighting all the ugly puppies of the world.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Which is a good argument for him dropping out in March or May. 

Yeah it was clear he had lost after Super Tuesday.  IIRC Sanders did well in the rest of March and early April contests.  It would have been optimal for him to drop out at that point - after he won Wisconsin.  That would have given him maximum leverage to negotiate the party platform with the Clinton camp without pissing them off.  Then he could have endorsed in May, or even early June.

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

 It helps ensure that the judges outlive the branches that appoint them, so that many have no particular loyalty to the current regime.

But sure.  Let's pass an Constitutional Amendment today that Supreme Court justices must retire at age 70+.  That way Trump can replace Ginsberg, Kennedy, Thomas, and Breyer.  And if he gets reelected, he can replace Alito and maybe Sotomayor.

Judges will still long outlive "the current regime" if you cap it at 75 or 80.  At that point many have served for a quarter century.  And don't be a smartass, it's called a grandfather clause.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, IamMe90 said:

Yeah, I can get a little over the top after a couple beers.

Here's the thing though, while staying in the race for as long as Sanders did was definitely bad strategy, I don't think seeing out the primary process to its end is worthy of nearly the level of condemnation he receives for it. And it certainly shouldn't be used to deflect having to deal with the Clinton campaign's flaws, and those of the Democratic party writ large. Which, I'm sure you'll say it isn't, but it certainly seems to be used to that effect very often. In fact, the only time I ever see this criticism leveled against Sanders here is as a knee-jerk justification-for Clinton's loss in the general. 

There are plenty of reasons why Clinton lost the general, and while Sanders' decision to stay in the race late may be one of them (I think this effect is dubious, but I won't discount it entirely), it's only one of them. I don't see how it's helpful for the party going forward to focus on this one reason so much, nor do I see how it is helpful for Clinton herself to help keep this discourse going publicly. 

I agree with most of what you wrote (especially the beers part, #cans), but not necessarily the bolded part. I agree that if a race is still close and mainly positive, then there’s no reason to have to end it early. But that wasn’t the case here. Sanders was all but mathematically eliminated, and it got really nasty towards the end, both by the candidates and their supporters. Hillary Clinton lost the election for many reasons, with most of them being self-inflicted, but Sanders refusal to get out when it was best for the Democratic ticket was an important factor, given how close the margin of defeat was.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Ah, I see.  You don't want Ginsburg and Kennedy to retire at 75, just whoever Trump nominates to replace them.

Neither Ginsburg nor Kennedy could possibly retire at 75!  Like I said, this is never going to happen.  But hypothetically, I would be for it no matter the president - and it would have to have a grandfather clause because there's bound to always be a good chunk of SCOTUS that's either over the limit or would be by the end of the incumbent president's term.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Damn!  What can I do?

Give them Benjamin Button disease?

[Bonnot OG]

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/south-floridas-geo-group-tortures-detainees-in-colorado-aclu-says-9638995

I got nothing.

[DMC]

Trump caves to Dems on Debt Ceiling/Harvey funding deal:

Quote

President Donald Trump agreed to a request from congressional Democrats to raise the debt ceiling and extend government funding through Dec. 15, according to sources familiar with a meeting he held Wednesday with congressional leaders. The package would also include relief funding for victims of Hurricane Harvey.

[Earlier...]

Democratic leaders said Wednesday they'll offer Republican lawmakers and President Donald Trump their votes for a package delivering aid to victims of Hurricane Harvey and raising the debt ceiling only until mid-December. GOP leaders, eager to avoid multiple contentious votes on the debt ceiling, want to raise the debt ceiling through late 2018. [...]

If Republicans go along, it would set up a brutal year-end fiscal cliff. Congressional leaders are expected to extend government funding, which expires Sept. 30, until the end of the year. So government funding and the debt ceiling would both have to be dealt with then.

 

[Week]

https://www.vox.com/2017/9/6/16259076/trump-daca-congress

Quote

As of Wednesday, September 6, the Trump administration is no longer accepting new applications from young immigrants to be temporarily protected from deportation (and able to work legally) under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Does Donald Trump actually know that? It’s not clear.

[...]

As a result, it’s likely that some people who could apply for DACA renewal before the program expires won’t, in fact, be able to do so. By the time the government officially starts allowing all DACA protections to expire, on March 6, 2018, the program will probably be smaller than the nearly 800,000 immigrants protected now.

What would “revisiting” DACA even mean at that point? Would Trump allow people who had lost DACA in February, because they hadn’t filed an early renewal, to renew again as if nothing had happened? Would the government pay back wages for those who had already lost their jobs? Would it send planes to countries where young immigrants who would have qualified for DACA (but hadn’t applied) had been deported over the past six months, and tell them to come back?

Trump is developing such a remarkable record of such capricious and fraudulent behavior -- it boggles the mind that he was elected and could be re-elected. He has no competence, honesty, or basic decency.

[Kalbear]

Thank goodness for McCain, that real maverick OH HE'S A DOUCHEBAG WHAT A SURPRISE

[Week]

27 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Trump does something, whereupon someone responds:

Trump does something *that he either doesn't understand or is lying about*. 

I wouldn't say the same if he said that he had no sympathy for DACA recipients nor would he reconsider in 6 months if Congress fails to take action. Granted, I'd say something else negative -- but at least he'd be honest and aware of what he's doing. I'm not sure either is the case.

[Week]

8 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Sure you will.

I wonder what you'll say if he ever actually does do anything slightly mean to the dreamers.  I'm not sure that's ever going to happen, but if it does ... what then?  How will you ratch up the rhetoric, so people can tell that something has changed?

Uh, whut? The point of the article is that changes are already happening to end the DACA program unless Congress steps in. Even then there will be unnecessary heartache.

To the rest:  Couldn't roll my eyes harder and I know you couldn't care less. We are at an impasse.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Sure you will.

I wonder what you'll say if he ever actually does do anything slightly mean to the dreamers.  I'm not sure that's ever going to happen, but if it does ... what then?  How will you ratch up the rhetoric, so people can tell that something has changed?

Riiiight, because subjecting 800,000 people to six months of uncertainty over whether they'll be subject to arrest, detention and deportation to a country they've never known, all for the crime of being brought into the country before many of them could even walk or talk couldn't possibly be construed as being "slightly mean", I guess?

Guess all those toddlers should have told their parents to fuck off and to not even think about breaking U.S. immigration laws.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

If you really think this sort of thing is "slightly mean", then maybe you shouldn't be pressing the panic button all the time.

I don't know what your threshold for "slightly mean" is, but considering this doesn't meet it, I'm just glad I'll never have to meet you in person.

[IamMe90]

7 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

If you really think this sort of thing is "slightly mean", then maybe you shouldn't be pressing the panic button all the time.

I'm legitimately unclear as to what you are saying here. Clarify?