US Politics: Let's Discuss US Politics

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Mexal said:

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.

Okay, this DNC stuff is complicated, so let's use an analogy.

New England Patriots Spygate

So, in Spygate, Patriots' staff were caught videotaping the opposing team's playcalling signals from an unauthorized area. So yes, the Patriots still had to properly execute their plays, had to block the right people, had to not incur penalties, but - knowing what formation the other team is going to be in gives you a pretty big advantage when you're determining your playcalling, right?

So the DNC acts as a clearinghouse for all sorts of voter information. That's why it's such a big deal when the DNC blocked Sanders from accessing his own campaign's voter lists after a member of Sanders' team illicitly gained access to the Clinton campaign's voter lists.

So if Sanders' campaign during the primary was going to send out a mass-mailer to his supporters about a particular issue, for example, the HVF memo allowed Clinton's campaign to view the content before it was sent out - "The DNC will provide advance opportunity to review". Because they know about it in advance, they had the opportunity to proactively strategize a response to minimize the effect, rather than having to strategize after the fact. That seems like it would come in pretty handy, no?

[Mexal]

Why does the Sanders campaign have to run a mailer to his supporters through the “neutral” DNC? He had his own list, one that he, even today, isn’t sharing with the DNC. He wasn’t using the JFA so not seeing any reason he had to use the DNC at all and if he wasn’t sending to the DNC and they weren’t sending anything out, not sure how Clinton was getting their hands on it ahead of time to strategize and answer.

[Kalbear]

Except that's not what happened nor is it what it means. Sanders mass emails didn't appear to go through the DNC at all, as many people pointed out at the time. 

What appears to be the case is that the DNC was helping clinton and not helping Sanders. That is shady. It is nothing compared to how republicans attempted to weigh things for Jeb, and it certainly shouldn' have been done. 

Rigging implies that the election was in the bag for clinton though, and I object to that incredibly strongly. 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Why does the Sanders campaign have to run a mailer to his supporters through the “neutral” DNC? He had his own list, one that he, even today, isn’t sharing with the DNC. He wasn’t using the JFA so not seeing any reason he had to use the DNC at all and if he wasn’t sending to the DNC and they weren’t sending anything out, not sure how Clinton was getting their hands on it ahead of time to strategize and answer.

He didn't "have" to run anything through the DNC. That's not the point. The point is that most primary candidates utilize the national party infrastructure to disseminate information to their supporters or to voters that their data tells them are persuadeable. This is because the DNC infrastructure apparatus is more or less permanent, compared to a primary campaign's infrastructure, which needs to be built up from scratch.

If Bernie had utilized DNC infrastructure to send out mailers or whatever, then the terms of the memo allow Clinton's campaign access to Sanders' campaign strategies: where they are focusing their efforts, what messages they are sending, etc. It essentially makes the DNC, which is bound in its bylaws to be a neutral arbiter during the primary, an extension of the Clinton campaign. The DNC, during the primary, was working FOR Clinton by providing special access to information that no other campaign was receiving.

On the flip side, if Sanders chooses not to utilize DNC infrastructure, then that means he had to build his own campaign infrastructure from scratch, which means that time and money that would be better spent campaigning is instead bring spent building the infrastructure he needs to be able to campaign.

And that doesn't even get in to how the JFA gave Clinton's team the power to choose the DNC Comms Director, or the authority to vet other staffing hires at the DNC. I'm sure you don't believe that Sanders' campaign had authority to vet staffing hires for the DNC, which means that the DNC was actively participating in a process that was overtly biased towards Clinton.

And this isn't an example of a passive bias either, where the DNC hires a staffer who may privately favor Clinton, but who does their best to be as neutral as possible in the performance of their duties. No, in this case, the DNC allowed the Clinton campaign to provide it with lists of job applicants that the Clinton campaign deemed were acceptable to hire, and then the DNC was bound by the terms of the agreement to hire from Clinton's preferred list. 

I mean, at what point do we acknowledge that some extremely unethical and undemocratic behavior was occurring during the primary? The Clinton campaign controlled staffing at the DNC before the primary even started, it was provided access to privileged information about Democratic opponents during the primary and while Clinton purported to be fundraising to help expand Democratic party strength at the state level, the reality was that all that money was being funneled right back to the campaign.

If you want to quibble over the term "rigged", that's fine; I will stipulate that the DNC did not guarantee Clinton a primary victory. However, what the DNC did do was to make it hard as fuck for anyone BUT Hillary to win. 

[Fragile Bird]

I am just very puzzled about all this DNC stuff, and it wouldn't surprise me if other foreigners were puzzled as well.

From what I have seen, the DNC after the previous election was essentially broke, and when they signed the agreement with Clinton, one of the reasons for some of the terms was that the DNC was hopelessly incompetent and ts & cs were set out because hires were not made and debts were not paid. It would seem to me that if the demands set out by the Clinton side weren't there, they would have been guilty of being just as incompetent as the DNC.

Secondly, where the hell was Obama? Is this some sort of practice in the US, that when someone is elected to a second term they step away from the campaign organization and take no part at all? Even if Obama could not run for another term, why wasn't he involved in fund raising for the party? It is absolutely inconceivable to me that the prime minister of Canada not be part of fund raising for his party, and I assume that's the same situation in Europe. Parties need continuing funds to keep going, why did Obama not participate by sending letters out that said "the Democratic party needs your help to continue to do good work", the kind of stuff I always get from parties here in Canada.

Can someone please explain?

[Altherion]

8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

At some point the 1% will have to realize that their greed is a threat to themselves as well.
Monetary creation works and it's one of the few systems that actually makes everyone richer. Inflation can be a bitch for those who own a lot of capital, but it's not like we don't know how to control it.
I'm hearing some interesting things about Portugal these days.

It's not necessarily true that the rich realize they are better off sharing -- at least not in time to make a difference. Sometimes they do (e.g. FDR during the Great Depression) and sometimes they don't (e.g. nobility before the French or Russian Revolutions).

Monetary creation may have worked at some point in time, but, just like with most other programs, it can be subverted by people with enough power and wealth to give them even more power and wealth. The recent Great Recession in the US is actually a good example of this: our monetary policy included not just slashing the interest rates to practically zero, but also "quantitative easing" (i.e. effectively creation of a few trillion dollars). This arguably helped "the economy", but in reality most of the gains went to the wealthy.

Also, inflation mainly affects people on a fixed income which is not adjusted for inflation. People who own capital in the form of stock or actual factories and/or real estate are minimally affected even if they're very wealthy.

I'm curious what you mean regarding Portugal -- aren't they stuck with whatever the EU decides?

9 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Not by me they aren't.

Sure -- and there are people like you in the US too... but there aren't enough of us.

9 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Do you truly think this man consciously seeks to "divide and conquer" ? It seems to me he genuinely views the world through the prism of racial divisions.

I do not know how he thinks and I suspect that like most people who make a great deal of money from doing something, he genuinely believes that what he is doing is good. However, his actions work out to divide-and-conquer and at least some of the people who pay him almost certainly understand this.

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Except that's not what happened nor is it what it means. Sanders mass emails didn't appear to go through the DNC at all, as many people pointed out at the time. 

What appears to be the case is that the DNC was helping clinton and not helping Sanders. That is shady. It is nothing compared to how republicans attempted to weigh things for Jeb, and it certainly shouldn' have been done. 

Rigging implies that the election was in the bag for clinton though, and I object to that incredibly strongly. 

See my response to Mexal. I've stipulated that the DNC did not "rig" the election in the sense that it guaranteed a Clinton victory. What the DNC and the Clinton campaign did do, however, was participate in extremely unethical and undemocratic behavior and that the DNC acted against its own bylaws requiring it to be a neutral arbiter during the primary. 

This behavior has hurt the Democratic Party and the country, and there are a lot of people who need to realize that the DNC acted egregiously in favor of one candidate during this primary, that failure to acknowledge bad actions and bad actors is prolonging the rift in the party, and that there is only a limited amount of time to try and make amends.  Otherwise, Democrats are about to be curbstomped by the most incompetent Republican administration in history in the 2018 elections, and then we truly are fucked.

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

See my response to Mexal. I've stipulated that the DNC did not "rig" the election in the sense that it guaranteed a Clinton victory. What the DNC and the Clinton campaign did do, however, was participate in extremely unethical and undemocratic behavior and that the DNC acted against its own bylaws requiring it to be a neutral arbiter during the primary. 

There's also something of a problem with Brazile's story - namely, the JFA from 2015 isnt' the same as the JFA from 2016, and conflating the two would result in a LOT of weirdness. 

9 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

This behavior has hurt the Democratic Party and the country, and there are a lot of people who need to realize that the DNC acted egregiously in favor of one candidate during this primary, that failure to acknowledge bad actions and bad actors is prolonging the rift in the party, and that there is only a limited amount of time to try and make amends.  Otherwise, Democrats are about to be curbstomped by the most incompetent Republican administration in history in the 2018 elections, and then we truly are fucked.

If you really believe that the main reason that the Democratic party is going to be curbstomped is because of Donna Brazile's tell-all book that fabricates things - and more importantly, that you think that the party acknowledging bad actions and actors when people like Sanders are STILL saying how the Democratic party needs to stop paying attention to African Americans in favor of 'normal' Americans - then we're already fucked.

And as I said above, we're probably fucked, anyway. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

What appears to be the case is that the DNC was helping clinton and not helping Sanders. That is shady. It is nothing compared to how republicans attempted to weigh things for Jeb, and it certainly shouldn' have been done. 

Rigging implies that the election was in the bag for clinton though, and I object to that incredibly strongly. 

I don't see how you can frame this in a good way. The DNC never should've put itself in a position to be bought out by a primary candidate. Whether the primary was rigged or not, The DNC was clearly in Hillary's corner to a degree that was almost proprietary.

I think your point regarding Jeb is an important one. Hillary likely wins the primary regardless of this advantage, but do we really want our party to operate like this?  

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

There's also something of a problem with Brazile's story - namely, the JFA from 2015 isnt' the same as the JFA from 2016, and conflating the two would result in a LOT of weirdness. 

If you really believe that the main reason that the Democratic party is going to be curbstomped is because of Donna Brazile's tell-all book that fabricates things - and more importantly, that you think that the party acknowledging bad actions and actors when people like Sanders are STILL saying how the Democratic party needs to stop paying attention to African Americans in favor of 'normal' Americans - then we're already fucked.

And as I said above, we're probably fucked, anyway. 

First of all, citation for Sanders saying we need to "stop paying attention to African Americans".

Second, way to miss the forest for the trees. I'm not talking about the fucking book. I've already stated upthread that Brazile is hardly innocent in all this, and that she actively participated in weighing the scales. My point was that Democratic leadership needs to acknowledge that some seriously fucked up shit has been going on at the DNC for years, that a lot of Democratic voters are fucking fed up with it, and that this shit needs to be aired out and fixed instead of standing around like Frank fucking Drebin in front of a burning house saying "there's nothing to see here" - which is exactly the shit you're doing when you pull out your tired "Bernie doesn't give a shit about minorities" card every time someone dares to criticize the Holy One.

I mean what the fuck? Are we fucking Republicans now? Are we just going to stand on a sinking ship and pretend like nothing is fucking happening? Is ignoring facts the in thing with Democrats now? Because it sure fucking seems like it, and THAT'S what is going to get us curbstomped next year.

 

[ThinkerX]

32 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I am just very puzzled about all this DNC stuff, and it wouldn't surprise me if other foreigners were puzzled as well.

From what I have seen, the DNC after the previous election was essentially broke, and when they signed the agreement with Clinton, one of the reasons for some of the terms was that the DNC was hopelessly incompetent and ts & cs were set out because hires were not made and debts were not paid. It would seem to me that if the demands set out by the Clinton side weren't there, they would have been guilty of being just as incompetent as the DNC.

Secondly, where the hell was Obama? Is this some sort of practice in the US, that when someone is elected to a second term they step away from the campaign organization and take no part at all? Even if Obama could not run for another term, why wasn't he involved in fund raising for the party? It is absolutely inconceivable to me that the prime minister of Canada not be part of fund raising for his party, and I assume that's the same situation in Europe. Parties need continuing funds to keep going, why did Obama not participate by sending letters out that said "the Democratic party needs your help to continue to do good work", the kind of stuff I always get from parties here in Canada.

Can someone please explain?

Even though I am a US citizen, much of this is unclear to me as well. 

I believe two things happened:

First, there was a faction fight over tactics and funding within the Democratic party shortly after Obama's 2008 election.  One faction wished to go the 'permanent campaign' route, contesting every election in every state.  The other wished to concentrate their resources on races that were winnable and to hell with the rest.  The second faction won, even though it was the first faction that played a major role in Obama getting elected. 

The second thing was that Obama was far more concerned with actual governance than fund raising.  Fund raising is time consuming, and the mechanics of it held no interest for Obama. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

22 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

If you really believe that the main reason that the Democratic party is going to be curbstomped is because of Donna Brazile's tell-all book that fabricates things - and more importantly, that you think that the party acknowledging bad actions and actors when people like Sanders are STILL saying how the Democratic party needs to stop paying attention to African Americans in favor of 'normal' Americans - then we're already fucked.

And as I said above, we're probably fucked, anyway. 

Agree with allowing Sanders to dictate terms to a party he isn't even an avowed member of needs to be laughed at. Tell ya what Bernie, put a D next to your name, and we can talk. Otherwise, just keep hammering away at this shit administration we are currently saddled with. Don't really want to hear much else out of you until you jump on the bandwagon. 

[Lord of Rhinos]

3 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

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, 

 

When are you going to to acknowledge that you're reading of internet comments does not actually constitute evidence of anything?  Hilary Clinton crushed Donald Trump in the popular vote.  She won by three million votes. This clearly shows that you're attempts to predict election outcomes based on internet comments are worthless.  If you'd predicted that Trump was going to narrowly take several democratic leaning states and win the electorate college while losing the popular vote you'd be on to something.  But you predicted that Trump could win the popular vote.  We've seen the results.  You were wrong.  The people that told you "Trump's goose is cooked" were right.

[ThinkerX]

2 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

First of all, citation for Sanders saying we need to "stop paying attention to African Americans".

Second, way to miss the forest for the trees. I'm not talking about the fucking book. I've already stated upthread that Brazile is hardly innocent in all this, and that she actively participated in weighing the scales. My point was that Democratic leadership needs to acknowledge that some seriously fucked up shit has been going on at the DNC for years, that a lot of Democratic voters are fucking fed up with it, and that this shit needs to be aired out and fixed instead of standing around like Frank fucking Drebin in front of a burning house saying "there's nothing to see here" - which is exactly the shit you're doing when you pull out your tired "Bernie doesn't give a shit about minorities" card every time someone dares to criticize the Holy One.

I mean what the fuck? Are we fucking Republicans now? Are we just going to stand on a sinking ship and pretend like nothing is fucking happening? Is ignoring facts the in thing with Democrats now? Because it sure fucking seems like it, and THAT'S what is going to get us curbstomped next year.

 

About a year ago, I started speculating about something a bit far fetched, but not utterly insane. 

Specifically, I thought that if the Greens somehow became organized (found a charismatic leader with a rational agenda - yes, its a bit of a stretch) they might successfully infiltrate the democratic party at the grassroots level.  They'd run Green candidates under the democratic banner in races that nobody in the utterly corrupt DNC cared about, using local, relevant issues to garner votes - things like contaminated water or air, or promoting green energy.  Maybe figure out some way to get the 'fight for fifteen' crowd on their side.  Done right, they could take a whole bunch of seats because neither party could see this coming.  Even gerrymandering might not be effective, because on the republican side, its oriented specifically against democrats, and some green issues cross sides.  Yes, it's far fetched.  But, given these revelations, and the way the democratic center absolutely loathes the left, maybe not quite as far fetched as before.

[ThinkerX]

1 minute ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

 

When are you going to to acknowledge that you're reading of internet comments does not actually constitute evidence of anything?  Hilary Clinton crushed Donald Trump in the popular vote.  She won by three million votes. This clearly shows that you're attempts to predict election outcomes based on internet comments are worthless.  If you'd predicted that Trump was going to narrowly take several democratic leaning states and win the electorate college while losing the popular vote you'd be on to something.  But you predicted that Trump could win the popular vote.  We've seen the results.  You were wrong.  The people that told you "Trump's goose is cooked" were right.

The problem with that statement is Trump DID win the election. 

To be more specific, what I was predicting back in June and July of 2016 was this:

'Trump is one terrorist attack away from winning the Whitehouse.'

I also pointed out that Clinton was especially unpopular with the white working class.

 

 

[Fragile Bird]

6 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

 

When are you going to to acknowledge that you're reading of internet comments does not actually constitute evidence of anything?  Hilary Clinton crushed Donald Trump in the popular vote.  She won by three million votes. This clearly shows that you're attempts to predict election outcomes based on internet comments are worthless.  If you'd predicted that Trump was going to narrowly take several democratic leaning states and win the electorate college while losing the popular vote you'd be on to something.  But you predicted that Trump could win the popular vote.  We've seen the results.  You were wrong.  The people that told you "Trump's goose is cooked" were right.

You know, in September of 2015 a friend of mine who had been involved in many an election here in Canada predicted that Trump could be president, because the things he was saying was resonating with a large number of voters. 2015, not 2016.

And if you search the US Politics threads back around then, you can see I posted that prediction. And at least once after that I said "President Donald John Trump, get used to hearing it". Now, I didn't think it was possible the way my more politically astute friend did, but it just shows you that there were people who thought Trump could win from the very beginning, simply based on the fact that Trump's populist voice had power.

[GAROVORKIN]

33 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

The problem with that statement is Trump DID win the election. 

To be more specific, what I was predicting back in June and July of 2016 was this:

'Trump is one terrorist attack away from winning the Whitehouse.'

I also pointed out that Clinton was especially unpopular with the white working class.

 

 

From a PR standpoint, the  basket of Deplorables comment wasn't helpful to Clinton .

[IamMe90]

55 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

People like Sanders are STILL saying how the Democratic party needs to stop paying attention to African Americans in favor of 'normal' Americans - then we're already fucked.

Oh, he said? Could you provide a source for that? 

[horangi]

My wife came to me today and asked the question, "why is it that in the liberal, anti-trump environment that I work in, that there is so little protest against the current tax proposal compared to all the nearly constant (and reasonable) complaints that I've been hearing?"  I've checked a couple tax calculators that have sprung up since the last day and found that this tax 'cut' apparently means that we will as a household be paying about $2500 more a year in federal taxes almost entirely due to the state tax and personal exemption elimination.  Now as a family earning around 150k a year, I am OK with paying the excess money to help out our society, but I am pretty bitter on the idea that somehow I am paying more out so that we can add to the national debt on a hope and prayer of increased growth and so that folks with a 5M$ estate and beyond aren't inconvenienced by having a percent of their excess wealth brought back to support the society that helped them.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

^^^^

Your wife is quite astute. This tax "cut" is bullshit. The Middle Class will foot the bill for it, and no one outside of the filthy rich will benefit from it. Trickle down is a myth.