US Politics: Let's Discuss US Politics

[Morpheus]

Donald Trump is completely revealing his autocratic tendencies this week. In addition to calling for the execution of the NYC terrorist and saying our legal system is a disgrace, he is now lamenting that he doesn not have more control over the DOJ and the FBI to direct investigations against his enemies. He is also bitching about the Bergdahl verdict, Trump has said that he should be executed even though all the military analysis I have seen says that is insane.

[Kalbear]

Now to be really, really clear about it - I think that Clinton taking over the DNC was a stupid, bad thing. It wasn't very effective, it didn't gain her much, but it did put the impression of unfairness into the equation - and liberals hate unfairness. Democrats need to ensure that whatever candidate they have works heavily on having the most fair image and the most caring image that they can in order to unite the base, and Clinton has never had that and continues to do things that openly tarnish it.

At the same time, I fail to see how this affected the Sanders campaign in any real way, and to me it sounds like yet another bad excuse Sanders and his supporters give for not recognizing his actual failures. Which seems especially sad to me, given how much grief they give Clinton for not falling on her sword and her failures to win the presidency. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

At the same time, I fail to see how this affected the Sanders campaign in any real way, and to me it sounds like yet another bad excuse Sanders and his supporters give for not recognizing his actual failures. Which seems especially sad to me, given how much grief they give Clinton for not falling on her sword and her failures to win the presidency. 

Agree with the first bit. I doubt that it changed the outcome much.

Not so sure about the second part. Seems to me she earned a fair percentage of that grief.

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Agree with the first bit. I doubt that it changed the outcome much.

Not so sure about the second part. Seems to me she earned a fair percentage of that grief.

I think that many of those people would have only been happy if she had gone to a public square, shouted I WAS WRONG while naked and covered in ram's blood, and then ritually slit her own throat. 

The book that she wrote has something like 75 different instances of her specifically saying that she made a mistake, did something wrong or erred in a choice. I think people have gotten the blood that they're going to get. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I think that many of those people would have only been happy if she had gone to a public square, shouted I WAS WRONG while naked and covered in ram's blood, and then ritually slit her own throat. 

The book that she wrote has something like 75 different instances of her specifically saying that she made a mistake, did something wrong or erred in a choice. I think people have gotten the blood that they're going to get. 

Yeah, I think that's a fair point.

I haven't read the book (and I doubt I would bother, honestly) but I was really impressed with her Maddow interview. I thought she came across as more personable and personally responsible there than at any point during the campaign.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I think that's a fair point.

I haven't read the book (and I doubt I would bother, honestly) but I was really impressed with her Maddow interview. I thought she came across as more personable and personally responsible there than at any point during the campaign.

Clinton always appears more awesome than people think when she's not running for things. Same thing was true as SoS. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

43 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not true, or not statistically true. The amount of Sanders supporters that supported Trump (or someone else) is virtually identical to the number of Clinton supporters who ended up voting for McCain, as an example - about 12%. 

I'd also love to hear how the DNC actually did affect, well, anything. It wasn't fundraising, right? Is it that they said they'd have 6 debates back in 2015 before any other candidates announced - which is the same amount as they had for Clinton/Obama? I'm really confused how, precisely, they actually put thumbs on scales.

Also note that democratic party members are at each other's throats while Trump is POTUS, pointing out the inherent difference of liberals and conservatives - which is that conservatives stay loyal to their ingroup, and liberals do not.

Eh, I think those statistics are just coincidences. McCain was a normal candidate that had some policy overlaps with Clinton that differed from Obama’s. Trump on the other hand stood for everything Sanders opposed. I’m sure more of them would have voted for Clinton if they didn’t think the process was rigged (and it doesn’t matter if it actually was or not. The only thing that mattered is how they felt). And given how close WI, MI and PA were, every vote mattered.

And it’s funny you bring up the debates, because that’s one of the biggest things Sanders supporters cite as a reason why it was rigged. You’ve got to admit, it appears those dates were selected to hide them. The running joke was that if the DNC could have scheduled them on Christmas Eve and the day of the Superb Owl, they would have. As far as the fund raising, when did the Hillary Victory Fund start using the DNC as a way to launder state party’s money? Because if that was during the primary I’d say that’s a major attempt to rig the primary, not that it matters now anyways.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Eh, I think those statistics are just coincidences. McCain was a normal candidate that had some policy overlaps with Clinton that differed from Obama’s. Trump on the other hand stood for everything Sanders opposed. I’m sure more of them would have voted for Clinton if they didn’t think the process was rigged (and it doesn’t matter if it actually was or not. The only thing that mattered is how they felt). And given how close WI, MI and PA were, every vote mattered.

It's more that a lot of the votes that were for Sanders were for 'not Clinton' and were, in fact, Republicans - especially in open primaries and the like. @dmc515 can jump on this more, but basically there was no real difference between the voters who switched in this election and other ones; the main reason Clinton lost was that people in certain states didn't turn out as much. 

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

And it’s funny you bring up the debates, because that’s one of the biggest things Sanders supporters cite as a reason why it was rigged. You’ve got to admit, it appears those dates were selected to hide them.

I really don't. I have always thought that argument was bullshit, and I continue to do so. They were scheduled at almost precisely the same times and dates as the 2008 debates. 

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

 As far as the fund raising, when did the Hillary Victory Fund start using the DNC as a way to launder state party’s money? Because if that was during the primary I’d say that’s a major attempt to rig the primary, not that it matters now anyways.

It was after the primaries had finished but before the convention, in June IIRC. And again, that might make Clinton's race more competitive, but it in no way hurts or does anything to Sanders. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Clinton always appears more awesome than people think when she's not running for things. Same thing was true as SoS. 

Yeah, I would agree with that assessment. She's a whole different person when the pressure is off. It's quite unfortunate really, as that perceived sincerity would've served her well during the campaign.   

[Maithanet]

Interesting Slate piece on why Mueller charged Manafort and Gates with a relatively short list of crimes.  Short answer:  to maintain leverage in the event of a Trump pardon. 

 

Quote

 

Mueller’s moves may make strategic sense because of a shadow hanging over the entire investigation: the potential that President Donald Trump might use his presidential pardon power to protect possible accomplices in potential crimes.

Mueller knows that Trump can pardon Manafort (or any defendant) in order to relieve the pressure to cooperate with Mueller and to keep them quiet. But Mueller also knows that presidential pardons affect only federal crimes and not state-level crimes. On the one hand, double jeopardy rules under the Fifth Amendment prevent a second prosecution for the same crime

...

Mueller wisely brought one set of charges (mostly financial crimes that preceded the campaign), and he is saving other charges that New York could also bring (tax fraud, soliciting stolen goods, soliciting/conspiring to hack computers).

 

Thus, Trump can't pardon Manafort for state crimes, but double jeopardy protection means that if the feds charge Manafort/Gates with fraud, etc, then NY wouldn't be able to prosecute them for it as well.  Instead, he's leaving that door open.  There's also this:

Quote

In August, sources revealed that Mueller was already coordinating with [NY AG] Schneiderman, likely to work out this strategy. I also noted that all of this legal background is relevant to solve an additional problem: If Trump fires Mueller, state prosecutors can carry on with his investigation and prosecutions based on parallel state laws.

I don't know how much to believe given how Slate often writes what it's readers what to see (Clinton's about to win!  SC about to strike down gerrymandering!)  But everything in the piece makes sense, and it gives the impression that Mueller is a pretty ruthless prosecutor, and he's doing all he can to rob Trump of leverage. 

[Mexal]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Emails and Documents Provide a Peek Into Ohio Gerrymandering

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2017/11/emails_documents_disclose_ohio.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

/Report from the League of Women Voters and Common Cause of Ohio outline the 2011 map redraw in Ohio that has allowed no seat to change party hands in 3 election cycles.

//This is where "voter fraud" occurs in this country. More accurately described as vote rigging.

This was a really depressing and interesting read.

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

Donald Trump is completely revealing his autocratic tendencies this week. In addition to calling for the execution of the NYC terrorist and saying our legal system is a disgrace, he is now lamenting that he doesn not have more control over the DOJ and the FBI to direct investigations against his enemies. He is also bitching about the Bergdahl verdict, Trump has said that he should be executed even though all the military analysis I have seen says that is insane.

And no one bats an eye. This is what scares me the most. This is written off as "oh it's Trump" and that's fucking scary.

5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I don't know how much to believe given how Slate often writes what it's readers what to see (Clinton's about to win!  SC about to strike down gerrymandering!)  But everything in the piece makes sense, and it gives the impression that Mueller is a pretty ruthless prosecutor, and he's doing all he can to rob Trump of leverage. 

Not just Mueller, but his whole team. Andrew Weissman is a pit bull. Michael Dreeben is one of the top criminal law experts in the country, having argued a 100 courses in front of the Supreme Court. Kyle Freeny just left the DOJ's largest money laundering case to join Mueller. Andrew Goldstein worked under Preet Bharara on public corruption cases (including maybe investigations into Trump?). There are others with a wide array of expertise that touches on fraud, foreign bribery, not to mention a team from the IRS that specializes in tax evasion and money laundering. I just don't see how they don't find everything there is to find.

[Fragile Bird]

I was a little surprised to hear Trump say Bowe Bergdahl would have been shot for desertion 30 years ago.

The last US soldier shot for desertion was Private Eddie Slovik, January 31, 1945. 72 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik

 

[OldGimletEye]

On 11/3/2017 at 2:52 PM, Fragile Bird said:

I was a little surprised to hear Trump say Bowe Bergdahl would have been shot for desertion 30 years ago.

The last US soldier shot for desertion was Private Eddie Slovik, January 31, 1945. 72 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik

 

In 1968, Trump was around 22 years old, I believe. Just about the right age to join the military and if he was really feelin' motivated get himself a position in the infantry and then to Vietnam. They always need guys.

He chose a deferment.

It would seem chicken hawkery strikes again.

[Week]

1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

I was a little surprised to hear Trump say Bowe Bergdahl would have been shot for desertion 30 years ago,

The last US soldier shot for desertion was Private Eddie Slovik, January 31, 1945. 72 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik

 

Of course, some of the more insane retweets blame the "deep state" for Bergdahl getting a light sentence.

/smh

Derp state indeed.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I think that's a fair point.

I haven't read the book (and I doubt I would bother, honestly) but I was really impressed with her Maddow interview. I thought she came across as more personable and personally responsible there than at any point during the campaign.

I read the book.  She did take responsibility, while still not getting it, so to speak.  She does in the book the same things she did in the campaign, among them very particularly drowning the reader in statistics, pages of them.  Those endless stats and endless blithering about her adoration of the role of grandma -- they didn't get her elected, and she ignores that she ignored the warnings and research brought to her that what she was doing was not working with multiple segments of both the Dem base and the general voting population.

I agree with her though, that a lot of the trouble her campaign had was due to her being female.  But she she ignores that it also has to do with her being a Clinton, and all the baggage she brought with her -- while yes, an enormous amount of the baggage was the fact that she has a vagina.  But if she hadn't been Bill's WIFE she'd never have been a senator from NY, whose voters she deserted quickly to run for POTUS nom, she wouldn't have been Sec of State and she wouldn't have gotten this nomination.  Look at all the male VPs and others who do drone on with stats and endless repetitions of the same info they've thrown out there for years -- they don't get the nomination to run for POTUS.  She did, partly because she was a First Lady in a generally successful admnistration.

 

[Zorral]

51 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I would agree with that assessment. She's a whole different person when the pressure is off. It's quite unfortunate really, as that perceived sincerity would've served her well during the campaign.   

Though -- I give her enormous credit for how cool she remained for hours and hours and hours -- standing (whereas Sessions etc. got to sit) while grilled about Benghazi -- during the campaign -- by nasty white male rethugs.  She is cool under pressure.  It's just that cool under campaign pressure turns to her comfort zone, reeling off long clauses of stats and points of plans, etc.  That doesn't work for campaigning, particularly in an election that was conducted entirely by the other side in the realm of unreality, irrationality and hate.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Stephen Miller and Hope Hicks both placed at Papadopoulos Meeting Where Russian Contact Was Discussed

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/us/politics/trump-jeff-sessions-russia.html?smid=tw-share&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

/Flippopotamus must've been getting a lot of coffee.

[Morpheus]

37 minutes ago, Mexal said:

And no one bats an eye. This is what scares me the most. This is written off as "oh it's Trump" and that's fucking scary.

Just a guy demanding absolute power, separation of powers be damned. Congress? It is not enough to be part of the controlling party, they should support the President first and foremost in all things, not their constituents or the Constitution. The judiciary? They should not have the power to strike down edicts from Donald Trump. Intelligence? They should be used at the Presidents discretion.

[Mexal]

Jaime sent me this link and I think it epitomizes my fears. I honestly do not see how we go back from here. If Democrats don't win the House in 2018, I don't think we'll have a democracy left in the next 5-10 years.

America is facing an epistemic crisis: What if Mueller proves his case and it doesn’t matter?

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

Jaime sent me this link and I think it epitomizes my fears. I honestly do not see how we go back from here. If Democrats don't win the House in 2018, I don't think we'll have a democracy left in the next 5-10 years.

America is facing an epistemic crisis: What if Mueller proves his case and it doesn’t matter?

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.