US Politics: Let's Discuss US Politics

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Mexal said:

But ultimately, I tend to fall into your pessimism. I think we're fucked and I'm having a hard time finding a line conservatives won't cross to keep power.

Something key to watch is if Grassley calls Sessions back to testify before the Senate. It seems fairly obvious at this point that he committed perjury, and if Grassley refuses to do anything about it, then we know that they probably won't do anything about Trump either.

[ThinkerX]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, citation needed, especially since ya know the 'revelation' that Clinton was running things didn't come out as a statement until two days ago. If Sanders supporters are staying home because of information that comes out 10 months after the election, they've got a lot more power than I realize.

I read the comments sections to a great many political articles during the campaign.

Sanders supporters, across the board, were convinced that the DNC had rigged the system in favor of Clinton.  They knew THEN what you flat out refused to acknowledge until NOW. 

That said, Sanders did get 13 million folks to vote for him in the primaries despite DNC/Clinton sabotage and hostility.  Despite all her less than ethical schemes, spending vastly more money, and taking money from dubious sources, Clinton topped that total by less than 4 million votes in the primaries. 

I maintain Sanders would have beat Trump, due in large part to something lost on Clinton supporters: Charisma.  The Democratic Party has put two people in the oval office over the past 30 years.  Both were charismatic.  Their other, more technocratic candidates, all flopped.  Same is largely true for republicans: Reagan was 'the great communicator.'  Bush II could be downright folksy when he made the effort.  And Trump lives for media exposure.  The one exception is Bush I, who lasted but a single term.  Clinton, like similar candidates in the past, lacked charisma.  This was very clear in the message board comments - nobody liked her much, even her supporters. 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think at this point it's fair to say that the Clinton's have pretty much left a level of soap scum or detritus on just about anything they've touched politically. I used to think that it was fair to say that Hillary had been unfairly painted with Bill's crimes, but I don't think that cover holds anymore. I think it's fair to say that theirs is a symbiotic relationship.   

The alternative is that there is such a thing as the Clinton Political Maxim: anything that Hillary Clinton does will be interpreted in the worst possible light, no matter what other alternative explanations can be offered.

So their giving a contract to the DNC that says they have some right of selection on candidates (though not final say) will be interpreted as them literally running the DNC. Their bailing out of the DNC which was massively in debt? That's them using it to trounce Sanders. Etc, etc. 

Now Mudguard et al are blaming Clinton for the lack of turnout by Democrats in 2017, despite a) no real sign that this is an actual issue and b ) no evidence that anyone actually cares. 

This is certainly a reason that Clinton should not run again. It is not, however, particularly accurate. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Oh hey, here's the actual memo text from the Clinton/DNC deal:

Wow, that sounds SUPER shady.

But the actions taken after were incredibly shady. I don't know why you deny this Kal. The way the HVF was used was to circumvent campaign finance laws, and it makes all Democrats look like hypocrites if we just conveniently ignore this while also calling for further campaign finance reforms. It makes the message look hollow and the messenger look like a fraud. 

As to the DNC being rigged, is it meaningless to you that Sen. Warren said it was?

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, ThinkerX said:

I read the comments sections to a great many political articles during the campaign.

Sanders supporters, across the board, were convinced that the DNC had rigged the system in favor of Clinton.  They knew THEN what you flat out refused to acknowledge until NOW. 

I do not acknowledge that the DNC had rigged the system in favor of Clinton. Your continued 'reading the comments section' is especially funny given that we now know how much of that was actually Russian professional trolling.

1 minute ago, ThinkerX said:

That said, Sanders did get 13 million folks to vote for him in the primaries despite DNC/Clinton sabotage and hostility.  Despite all her less than ethical schemes, spending vastly more money, and taking money from dubious sources, Clinton topped that total by less than 4 million votes in the primaries. 

That 'less than 4 million' is the largest margin in the primaries of any candidate for any party, ever. Just FYI. 

1 minute ago, ThinkerX said:

I maintain Sanders would have beat Trump, due in large part to something lost on Clinton supporters: Charisma.  The Democratic Party has put two people in the oval office over the past 30 years.  Both were charismatic.  Their other, more technocratic candidates, all flopped.  Same is largely true for republicans: Reagan was 'the great communicator.'  Bush II could be downright folksy when he made the effort.  And Trump lives for media exposure.  The one exception is Bush I, who lasted but a single term.  Clinton, like similar candidates in the past, lacked charisma.  This was very clear in the message board comments - nobody liked her much, even her supporters. 

Guess you didn't bother going to her fan's pages, then. Shame - it's almost as if the comments sections that you went to were not representative of everyone out there. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

But the actions taken after were incredibly shady. I don't know why you deny this Kal.

I literally said that they were shady.

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

The way the HVF was used was to circumvent campaign finance laws, and it makes all Democrats look like hypocrites if we just conveniently ignore this while also calling for further campaign finance reforms. It makes the message look hollow and the messenger look like a fraud. 

It reminds me of Obama saying that he's not going to not use SuperPACs while Republicans are doing it. After 2014, where SCOTUS ruled that you could not limit an individual's donations, the Democratic groups with Clinton went after that with gusto. Was Obama full of shit when he said it, too?

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

As to the DNC being rigged, is it meaningless to you that Sen. Warren said it was?

Kinda? Or at least it's not particularly based in fact.

I get that Sanders supporters and a lot of democrats really, really hate Clinton, and really, really want to believe that Sanders was cheated out of an election. That they feel that way is true. That feeling is going to affect things down the road, and it's going to be as non-fact based as Trump supporters thinking that he lost the popular vote because of millions of illegal voters. Both of those things are likely going to have an effect on future elections because people are irrational and driven by narratives that show themselves to be right no matter what - but that doesn't make it accurate. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The alternative is that there is such a thing as the Clinton Political Maxim: anything that Hillary Clinton does will be interpreted in the worst possible light, no matter what other alternative explanations can be offered.

I feel like this became a self-fulfilling prophecy at some point. Most of the early accusations about Hillary seem to have been largely made up, but as time went on, it became clear that Hillary was rather shady, and I think this developed because she was sick and tired of people assuming she was shady. It's not fair, but it seems like that's what happened.  

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I'm pessimistic enough to think that it doesn't fundamentally matter at this point. Even if the House is won by Dems, what does that do? I guess you could in theory impeach Trump, but that won't matter if it's done on a partisan level. It allows more investigations - but again, all partisan-based, with no Republicans going across the aisle. 

So long as we as a nation are accepting two sets of actual truth that diverge from each other in meaningful ways, there is no reasonable way to have a conversation with others. There is no basis for middle ground, no consensus, because there is no even basis of language. 

I was thinking earlier today that there are a couple of ways that this gets solved, neither are particularly good. The first is that the Truth rears up and is ugly, and forces people to acknowledge it. Climate change is an example; if the world is wracked by disaster after disaster, if Oklahoma gets essentially wrecked because of fracking, if Florida goes underwater - it doesn't matter if people say 'no, it's all fine'. They can't just handwave it away. 

The other possibility is a true, honest, splitting of the country. When you have essentially two rival groups of ethnic communitiies bound by similar values, goals, truths, traditions and information there is little else that can happen. Whether that would be a civil war that one side wins, or two sides splitting entirely apart, I'm not sure - but that conflict and resolution has to happen.

If these people can be put in jail and any kind of virtuous, energetic, honest Dems get more seats in the House and Senate -- and reform the regulations for the telecommunications and media industries -- that could help a lot.  A huge amount, if a cork could be put into fake news / bots / Russian and others' meddling.  I.e., yank Fox and the Sinclairs and the rest of 'ems' licenses. They would never had the power to expand and monopolize without the Clintons messing with the Telecommunications Acts in the first place.

But as we stand without indictments from the top down, arrests, trials and sentencing, we're just rolling along as we have been doing for the last decades.  As much time as I've put in my life studying the causes of the War of Rebellion, and how it happened, we're here. The Dems and liberals have compromised on everything these NRA / white supremacist / hatred of federal gummit (unless it's their own hand outs, which they refused to recognize as such), their ever increasing conviction of victimization have demanded for years. They always got their way because everyone's afraid of their temper tantrums, just as the non-slavocracy was terrified of their guns and their temper and their threats.  (And the votes! the votes! -- well, look where that has gotten us all, then and now.)

But then came the time when there was nothing left to give a compromise on, just as in 1860, when Charleston demanded that the federal Fort Sumter be handed over to them -- after Secession.  There's just nothing left.

How this shooting war plays out through -- as it's not two discrete territories -- well, likely it will include what the secessionists tried for numero uno and right away -- invading and taking control of California.  That failed as they had to go through New Mexico and they, for at least the second time, were too stupid to notice that what they were doing was going to be a disaster due to distance, climate and -- woo, the New Mexicans hated them.  But this time Texas has military airbases, naval bases, and everything else, so . . . .

Strategically, taking control of both California and the Pacific Northwest, and New York and New England makes a lot of sense.  One thing I know for sure -- Detroit will be a bloody massacre / blood bath, and the outcome -- I wouldn't guess.  But there a are a LOT of black vets and Muslim vets living that area.

[Mexal]

28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Oh hey, here's the actual memo text from the Clinton/DNC deal:

Wow, that sounds SUPER shady.

Sigh. Another non-story that gains complete control of the airwaves. I hate this.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I literally said that they were shady.

My bad.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It reminds me of Obama saying that he's not going to not use SuperPACs while Republicans are doing it. After 2014, where SCOTUS ruled that you could not limit an individual's donations, the Democratic groups with Clinton went after that with gusto. Was Obama full of shit when he said it, too?

Yup, that really did disappoint me.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Kinda? Or at least it's not particularly based in fact.

I get that Sanders supporters and a lot of democrats really, really hate Clinton, and really, really want to believe that Sanders was cheated out of an election. That they feel that way is true. That feeling is going to affect things down the road, and it's going to be as non-fact based as Trump supporters thinking that he lost the popular vote because of millions of illegal voters. Both of those things are likely going to have an effect on future elections because people are irrational and driven by narratives that show themselves to be right no matter what - but that doesn't make it accurate. 

It's not just Sanders supports or Clinton haters that believe this, because I am neither and I do think there was some level of rigging by the DNC to ensure that Clinton won, though I still believe she would have won anyways if there wasn't. And It's problematic when people flatly deny there was any rigging whatsoever when it appears on the surface that there were some shady actions going on behind the scenes. We'll likely never know the full truth, and in the long run it won't really matter one bit if and when the party can reunite, but denying it outright without a smoking gun is not that dissimilar to what's going on with Trump and the Russia investigation.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Also this just broke:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/central-americans-and-haitians-no-longer-need-protected-status-state-dept-says/2017/11/03/647cbd5c-c0ba-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?pushid=59fcee82f191861d00000001&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.adc91c0f2c7e

 

[Martell Spy]

If These Senators Aren’t Lying, Then Trump’s Tax Plan Is Already Dead

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/11/if-these-senators-arent-lying-trumps-tax-plan-is-dead.html

The Republican Tax Plan Is Political Suicide

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/11/the-republican-tax-plan-is-political-suicide.html

[ThinkerX]

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

do not acknowledge that the DNC had rigged the system in favor of Clinton. Your continued 'reading the comments section' is especially funny given that we now know how much of that was actually Russian professional trolling.

Wrong.  Far, far more there than 'Russian Trolls.'  My reading the comments sections told me that Clinton was in grave danger of losing the general six months prior to the election.  When I posted those observations here, YOU, among others, flat out dismissed them.  'Trump's goose is cooked,' or something similar, was one such statement. 

(I detest this 'upgrades' quote system, so I'll respond directly)

You think that Sanders coming out of nowhere, raising $228,000,000+ exclusively from individual contributions, and getting 13 million primary votes is something to sneer at or ignore?  That attitude makes you part of the problem, not the solution.

And as to Clintons supporters, if they were active away from their protected internet fiefs, I saw no sign of it. Instead, regardless of the articles source or intended audience, positive support for Clinton was effectively nonexistent.  Trumps internet followers were numerous, rabid, and often semi-literate.  Sanders crowd came in a somewhat distant second.  A few other republican candidates such as Cruz had a few adherents, but not many.  What gets me is that you find all this irrelevant, 

[ThinkerX]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I'm pessimistic enough to think that it doesn't fundamentally matter at this point. Even if the House is won by Dems, what does that do? I guess you could in theory impeach Trump, but that won't matter if it's done on a partisan level. It allows more investigations - but again, all partisan-based, with no Republicans going across the aisle. 

So long as we as a nation are accepting two sets of actual truth that diverge from each other in meaningful ways, there is no reasonable way to have a conversation with others. There is no basis for middle ground, no consensus, because there is no even basis of language. 

I was thinking earlier today that there are a couple of ways that this gets solved, neither are particularly good. The first is that the Truth rears up and is ugly, and forces people to acknowledge it. Climate change is an example; if the world is wracked by disaster after disaster, if Oklahoma gets essentially wrecked because of fracking, if Florida goes underwater - it doesn't matter if people say 'no, it's all fine'. They can't just handwave it away. 

The other possibility is a true, honest, splitting of the country. When you have essentially two rival groups of ethnic communitiies bound by similar values, goals, truths, traditions and information there is little else that can happen. Whether that would be a civil war that one side wins, or two sides splitting entirely apart, I'm not sure - but that conflict and resolution has to happen.

Your thinking is now where mine was 12+ years in the past.

Back then, I was thinking of what I called 'the man on horseback,' a conservative, all American type, made president via a mudslide of a campaign in either 2016 or 2020. My prediction was that said 'man on horseback' would start what amounted to an oil war (yes, my argument came from 'peak oil), and would also mark the beginning of a especially authoritarian period in the US.  (I posted here a few times about this back in the day, and received appropriate scorn.)

What is not acknowledged by the Right and much of the establishment is the events we are witnessing now will create hell's own backlash. The closest comparison I can make is the rise of the labor union movement a century ago, and yes, its flawed. 

What also gets overlooked is that the conservative base is actively imploding - the vast majority are old, and dying at an accelerated rate.  Entire small towns are vanishing.  The 2020 census should be interesting in that regard.  No amount of gerrymandering or voter suppression, short of a literal dictatorship with its leadership living in fear of its subjects will change that. 

This whole mess is also why I keep pushing - and getting hammered for:

'the other side doesn't go away.  find some way to coexist or face utter catastrophe,'

 

[Inigima]

I think Clinton has a long history of walking riiiiiiiight up to the line of what's legal, and failing to understand that merely staying on the legal side of the line isn't always enough. Clinton never breaks the law, but she does a lot of things that look shady, and people don't like it. There's nothing illegal about this agreement, but it sure isn't a good look.

For their part, the Democratic Party needs to get it through their skulls that a huge chunk of the left -- not a majority, maybe, but an awful lot -- don't fucking like them. They clearly cannot afford to lose those voters, and if they don't learn anything we can all look forward to a country increasingly similar to The Handmaid's Tale.

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Oh hey, here's the actual memo text from the Clinton/DNC deal:

Wow, that sounds SUPER shady.

Kal, you have a HUGE blind spot when it comes to this and I can't figure out why. You managed to pick out the very end of the memo that contradicts a whole hell of a lot of shit that comes before it, like:

With respect to the hiring of a DNC Communications Director, the DNC agrees that no later than September 11, 2015 it will hire one of two candidates previously identified as acceptable to 

HFA.

Luis Miranda was announced as the hire for DNC Comms Director on Sept. 18. Now call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that Bernie and Hillary can't BOTH have a JFA with the DNC that gives them the authority to pick the Comms Director.

Or there's this gem:

The DNC will provide HFA advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate. This does not include any communications related to primary 

debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC. The DNC will alert HFA in advance of mailing any direct mail communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate or his or her signature.

That explicitly gives HFA inside access on direct mail, email and other communications being conducted by her Democratic primary opponents. It specifically calls out actions related to the primary.

[HoodedCrow]

Now I thought it was smart that the dems did not have as many televised debates while the republicans were conducting shooting circles. But in the end Clinton did not have as much charisma as she needed in a post fact World. 

Yes, that Hillary did a lot of the fundraising for the dems and that Sanders could win anyway was awkward. That a lot of the complaints about Hillary were exaggerated or invented by bots and amplified for reasons that are also possibly deep seated makes repairs difficult.

I would force George Clooney to run, because a minority friendly, media savvy and charismatic male, has the best shot to win in our world. People like that probably don’t want to run because they wouldn’t want their whole family subjected to smear campaigns, and whole cloth BS to hurt their reputations unless they have something to prove, or need a foreign country to settle their debts.

I would love for Colbert to run! Half the country wouldn’t get his jokes, though.

Splitting the vote on the left is fatal. Justin Trudeau got elected when the “two lefts” compromised. Come on, let’s vote out the orange menace and his ilk. Trump as a leader terrorizes women, jurists and people who like a due legal process, minorities, South Koreans, Iranians, the military who don’t want a stupid war or nukes, fact positive people, scientists and academics, truth tellers, gays who want to keep their rights, transgendered people by caving to haters, anti White supremiscists, anyone who wants to have a future without tainted food and water, anyone living in low lying land or who doesn’t want devestation by hurricanes and droughts, non fascists in the intelligence community, people who want cheaper and affordable health care, security for the elderly those who want fact based harm reduction programs for those dying of addictions, prison reform, reproductive rights, those who notice the clueless toadies that he has appointed...

I’m sure I’ve missed important points!

 

[Fragile Bird]

37 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also this just broke:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/central-americans-and-haitians-no-longer-need-protected-status-state-dept-says/2017/11/03/647cbd5c-c0ba-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?pushid=59fcee82f191861d00000001&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.adc91c0f2c7e

 

Wut? Wut? 

Thousands of Haitians and others covered by the program have been crossing illegally into Canada for more than a year because everyone knew Trump was going to cancel their status. Two poor bastards tried it south of Winterpeg in January and lost most of their fingers and toes. (They have been accepted, by the way, as refugees). One guy from Africa made it to South America and then walked north through Central America and the US and then swam across the Red River in the dark in only his underwear, in winter. He's been granted refugee status as well.

[HoodedCrow]

Oh yes, we’ve seen Trump go after journalists, too.

[Mexal]

9 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Kal, you have a HUGE blind spot when it comes to this and I can't figure out why. You managed to pick out the very end of the memo that contradicts a whole hell of a lot of shit that comes before it, like:

 

 

Luis Miranda was announced as the hire for DNC Comms Director on Sept. 18. Now call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that Bernie and Hillary can't BOTH have a JFA with the DNC that gives them the authority to pick the Comms Director.

Or there's this gem:

 

 

That explicitly gives HFA inside access on direct mail, email and other communications being conducted by her Democratic primary opponents. It specifically calls out actions related to the primary.

But it doesn’t say her campaign can veto it and I took that entire thing to say if the DNC was sending a mailing, not any mailing by other candidates which is what you’re implying. What mailings did the DNC do? And should she be entitled to something for funding the entire DNC?

Not sure how this rigs the primary. Mailing would still go out and people still need to vote. It also specifically says it has nothing to do with the primary debates.

Im just not seeing the rigging, nor am I seeing how this guaranteed 3+ mil more people would vote for Clinton. This is not what DB said it is and it’s clear she’s just trying to promote her book. This shit should not be dominating the airwaves a few days before the governor elections.