U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition

[Mexal]

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Yeah.  And as part of the political machine, theya re supposed to actively participate.  

I get it though.Gotta keep the unwashed masses out of such a dignified event.  Can;t have a bunch of bad apples upsetting the esteemed coronation ceremonies after all.

Yes, actively participate by passing a platform, not booing every mention of the nominee. They're not entitled to get everything they want. Like all politics, you compromise and both campaigns did which is why the platform has elements of both including a lot from Sanders, making it the most liberal platform ever. These protestors are just greedy and actively hurting the party which may lead them to getting Trump, meaning they get none of what they want.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

An interesting article from Matt Yglesias on Vox about why Sanders delegates are being so disruptive at the convention. Could be to the long-term benefit of the party if they manage to keep some of the more cooperative ones. 

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

An interesting article from Matt Yglesias on Vox about why Sanders delegates are being so disruptive at the convention. Could be to the long-term benefit of the party if they manage to keep some of the more cooperative ones. 

Yeah, there is something of a silver lining. I worry that a lot of these people are more for the cult of Bernie than they are actual progress, but I'm hoping that this makes some of them more active one way or another.

What was interesting to me from that article was that most of the people surveyed are totally going to vote for Clinton, they don't even dislike her, and they even realize that what they're doing is potentially damaging to Clinton - but it's more important to them to protest, even though they're not clear what they're going to accomplish. That...is not a good look. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

An interesting article from Matt Yglesias on Vox about why Sanders delegates are being so disruptive at the convention. Could be to the long-term benefit of the party if they manage to keep some of the more cooperative ones. 

The article is a bit too optimistic imo. The GOP also started with integrating activists during the last decade, those grassroots conservative aka the tea party is now giving them a real headache, and they have no clue how to get jin back into the bottle. 

So with regards to the left-wing activists attracted to Bernie, I would be more careful with what you wish for. It is a chance, but it's not entirely risk free imo.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

55 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Tywin, yeah... but so what? What's your actual objection? You oppose the TPP. Clinton opposes the TPP, in her head if not her heart. If Clinton's opposition is born out of political calculation, isn't it BETTER that she force her running mate to adopt the same position? Doesn't that show you how committed she is to taking this position? Isn't she doubling down on the same position you hold? 

First, I actually support TPP. I've said this several times now. Second, this is what I was getting at months ago when I was arguing that people should want their elected leaders to believe what they're saying. If a politician doesn't actually support a given issue, but believes they need to signal that they do to win an election, then the legislative outcome will most likely be less desirable than if the public had elected someone who actually supports the issue at hand. 

1 hour ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Are you suggesting that the alternative was better? That you'd rather Clinton have a running mate that was going around and actively undermining her position on TPP - which, lest we forget - is still the position you support? Do you want Clinton to have a running mate that is actively opposing what you want to happen? I don't get it. This is clearly the best outcome for achieving the policy goal you want. The other outcome - that Clinton has a VP taking the wrong position on this issue - is demonstrably worse. Why are you still griping? 

I'm arguing that if Clinton and Kaine actually support TPP, then they should come out and say it and do their best, to ya know, be leaders, and try and convince the party that their way is the better path rather than halfheartedly adopting their competitions' views to improve their chances of winning the election. And it's not unheard of at all for a Presidential and VP nominee of the same party to hold different views on an issue, even a major one. When that happens the VP just stays quit and doesn't undermine the Presidential candidates' stance. 

[maarsen]

37 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Considering that empires have conducted themselves with hereditary rule and even modern day businesses and careers often tend to have family dynasties its not that shocking. Sometimes it's nepotism, more often than not it's someone taking advantage of being close and witnessing how a particular business is done. 

Also i find it a bit dismissive to claim that Michelle Obama has no political experience after the last 8 years of her life.

for me personally I'm not a type of person that clings onto a candidate and would rather die than admit my candidate has any sort of weakness. So for me saying I'd give her support if she ran right now only means that. It doesn't mean I wouldnt create some sort of -Hillary has never done anything wrong no matter what -character out of myself.

 

 

A good rule of thumb is by the 3rd generation,  all the money and business is gone. Grandkids have a habit of passing stuff away. Does anyone  think that an amiable  dolt such as Prince  Charles is fitted run anything much less a country? 

[Fez]

40 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Yeah.  And as part of the political machine, theya re supposed to actively participate.  

 

I get it though.Gotta keep the unwashed masses out of such a dignified event.  Can;t have a bunch of bad apples upsetting the esteemed coronation ceremonies after all.

And the active participation was the creation of the platform and the various committee events that are occurring each morning and early afternoon. Plus, ya know, all the state convention stuff that was happening post-voting all spring and early summer.

The televised portion of the event is in fact a coronation because there is a candidate who won a majority of delegates. And anyone who doesn't want to behave during it has no business being there. The only purpose of the evenings is to show party unity and amplify the party message to voters; nothing else. The disagreements and arguing and participation occurs elsewhere.

[Altherion]

58 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This doesn't typically happen with politicians, like, at all. In general 80% of the policies that were promised get delivered. The 20% that don't usually are stopped, but are at least attempted. 

The hullaballo about it is such bullshit anyway. But the notion that Clinton won't kill it when she's said she'll kill it would be political suicide in 4 years time. It is exactly the sort of thing that opponents hold against you. So far Clinton hasn't done anything like that in her career, ever.

She may not openly break her promise, but she'll find a way to have it done (e.g. Obama can do it and she'll say that it's a done deal and she isn't touching it) and she'll support the TTIP which is not receiving much attention now. She has done this before:

Quote

 

On the eve of South Carolina’s Democratic presidential primary, the U.S. State Department released 1,500 pages of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s emails from her tenure as secretary of state. Included in the 881 emails published Friday night are messages highlighting Clinton lobbying for a controversial Colombian trade deal she previously pledged to oppose.

During her 2008 presidential run, Clinton said she opposed the deal because “I am very concerned about the history of violence against trade unionists in Colombia.” She later declared, “I oppose the deal. I have spoken out against the deal, I will vote against the deal, and I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.” 

But newly released emails show that as secretary of state, Clinton was personally lobbying Democratic members of Congress to support the deal, even promising one senior lawmaker that the deal would extend labor protections to Colombian workers that would be as good or better than those enjoyed by many workers in the United States.

 

 

[Shryke]

54 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

The conventional wisdom at the moment is that Obama is going to try to get TPP passed through a lame-duck Congress after the elections have passed and while it's still controlled by Republicans. Essentially, he'll take the hit for Clinton and pass what he thinks is a necessary trade deal that the Republican party wants (even if Trump doesn't).  

Yup. Which is why, last I heard, they had stopped anti-TPP language from being inserted into the Democratic Party platform. Obama is gonna take the bullet for Clinton by being the one to pass the thing and the party will give him cover for it in the platform by not opposing it at the party level. So Clinton gets to say she's against it and it still passes.

[Maester Drew]

Last night, Michelle Obama's and Bernie's speech were amazing!

[lokisnow]

I'm not so sure obama will take the bullet nor that republicans will pass it in the first place. If sitins were effective in the house, then Bernie will stage one in the lame duck against tpp. It's an insanely hot issue mutually opposed by voters of both parties and potentially a legacy destroying move for Obama,  I think he leaves the hot potato in the air and doesn't sign the evil job killing abdication of sovereignty that the treaty represents, and I think trying to lame duck it will create an insane ruckus in congress.

[Shryke]

45 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

An interesting article from Matt Yglesias on Vox about why Sanders delegates are being so disruptive at the convention. Could be to the long-term benefit of the party if they manage to keep some of the more cooperative ones. 

Eh, I don't buy his reasoning on how it will go well. I don't think the type of person there is really gonna stick around and get involved in party politics and if they do, it won't be in a way that's helpful to the party or their causes in the longer term.

The whole thing is just the same shit that was always coming out of the Sanders campaign: bad organisation and amateurism. They didn't control the selection of their own delegates and ended up with a bunch of disruptive assholes who boo their own candidate.

As a comparison, Clinton's campaign in 2008 was as hell of alot nastier then Sanders' but she made sure her delegates weren't these kind of morons and so there were no real issues.

[Shryke]

4 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

I'm not so sure obama will take the bullet nor that republicans will pass it in the first place. If sitins were effective in the house, then Bernie will stage one in the lame duck against tpp. It's an insanely hot issue mutually opposed by voters of both parties and potentially a legacy destroying move for Obama,  I think he leaves the hot potato in the air and doesn't sign the evil job killing abdication of sovereignty that the treaty represents, and I think trying to lame duck it will create an insane ruckus in congress.

Except it's supported by leadership on both sides and only needs to go past the Senate. If it fails, it will only be because enough Senators got cold feet. But I would bet they've already got their numbers lined up.

And the idea that TPP would be "legacy destroying" is ridiculous.

[Fez]

Funnily enough, polls regularly show that majorities in both parties support trade deals in principle, and that most people don't even know what exactly TPP is. But there's a vocal enough minority in both parties specifically opposed to TPP that we've ended up with both party's candidates being opposed to it.

And its not just them. Pelosi announced today that she also opposed TPP, which means that most Democratic congressional leadership is likely to come out against it soon as well. I don't think there will be a lame duck vote, and even if there is, I don't it passes at this point. Republican leadership can't whip enough votes for it, and with Democratic leadership opposed, even if they don't formally whip against it, very few Democrats would end up voting aye.

[Shryke]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

Funnily enough, polls regularly show that majorities in both parties support trade deals in principle, and that most people don't even know what exactly TPP is. But there's a vocal enough minority in both parties specifically opposed to TPP that we've ended up with both party's candidates being opposed to it.

And its not just them. Pelosi announced today that she also opposed TPP, which means that most Democratic congressional leadership is likely to come out against it soon as well. I don't think there will be a lame duck vote, and even if there is, I don't it passes at this point. Republican leadership can't whip enough votes for it, and with Democratic leadership opposed, even if they don't formally whip against it, very few Democrats would end up voting aye.

Pelosi and her people don't vote on TPP afaik.

[Fez]

Just now, Shryke said:

Pelosi and her people don't vote on TPP afaik.

They do. Its not a treaty. The House and Senate both voted in favor of fast-track and both are needed for TPP to be approved. But Ryan's been saying for a while that he wasn't sure if the House had enough votes for it, and he's been very much in favor of the deal. This won't help matters.

 

[Kalbear]

@Altherion, I don't read it that way. She opposed it as potus candidate. Obama supported it. As sos, she has to do what potus wants. 

[Shryke]

Anyway, now that I'm not on mobile, it would be more accurate to say elements of leadership on both sides are for TPP. And also against. 

But Obama and Republican leadership are strongly in favour and the pressure to pass it is very high (even though it doesn't look like it now cause of the campaign). 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Pelosi and her people don't vote on TPP afaik.

 

7 minutes ago, Fez said:

They do. Its not a treaty. The House and Senate both voted in favor of fast-track and both are needed for TPP to be approved. But Ryan's been saying for a while that he wasn't sure if the House had enough votes for it, and he's been very much in favor of the deal. This won't help matters.

 

Fez has the right of it:

https://www.globalpolicywatch.com/2016/01/whats-next-for-tpp-will-congress-ratify-in-2016/

[DunderMifflin]

54 minutes ago, maarsen said:

A good rule of thumb is by the 3rd generation,  all the money and business is gone. Grandkids have a habit of passing stuff away. Does anyone  think that an amiable  dolt such as Prince  Charles is fitted run anything much less a country? 

I think prince Charles is fit to be King of a constitutional monarchy. Which I have to believe who his relatives are help in that. Not just in that he inherits the title but just being around that his whole life is an advantage over someone else not related to the windsees. Not that it's that hard of a job to begin with.

Experience via close observation isn't the ultimate decider of qualifications but I think it isnt to be easily dismissed either.