U.S. Politics: 22 Trillion Problems But An Unsecured Border Ain’t One

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Oh, I wasn't saying anyone should choose him, just that that's his most likely successful path to being relevant on the national level.  I mean, maybe he'd want a Cabinet post - SoS or Treasury? - but I don't see why.

I don't know why folks like Wilbur Ross or Rex Tillerson wanted to be part of Trump's cabinet either, but here we are. I think some wealthy folks have a skewed view of the glamor of cabinet positions. Even the current opportunities for corruption aren't that enticing once you're that rich. And, as folks like Sheldon Adelson have shown over and over; you don't need to be part of the cabinet to get in on the really important corruption.

 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But wasn't that a previous independent run?  If he's running this time it would be as a Democrat.  That carries much less of a downside, because he wouldn't risk splitting the non-crazy vote and electing Trump. 

I mean, I agree he has no chance of winning the Democratic primary, but he could convince himself otherwise.  After all, what's a hundred million dollars wasted, when you have billions? 

Yeah you kind of answered your own question there.  Sure, it was as an independent previously, but he basically ruled that out in his reaction to Schultz.  In which case he'd have to win the Dem primary, which his prospects of winning right now are certainly even less realistic than his prospects of winning as a 3rd party candidate in 2016 (which was one of the best opportunities for a centrist to run as an independent in modern presidential history).  So, if we're basing this on his past decisions, seems very counter-intuitive.  Of course, he's getting old and has money to burn, so yeah fair enough, maybe he says fuck you rationality.

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

I don't know why folks like Wilbur Ross or Rex Tillerson wanted to be part of Trump's cabinet either, but here we are.

Neither Ross nor TIllerson are nearly as wealthy as Bloomberg, nor have ever had the control over a conglomerate the size of Bloomberg's to keep him busy.

[Fragile Bird]

Oh puke! Just watched Trump say what a fine person Bernie Sanders is and oh my how badly Hilary Clinton disrespected him.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Oh puke! Just watched Trump say what a fine person Bernie Sanders is and oh my how badly Hilary Clinton disrespected him.

 

[Kalbear]

Sanders at least got his fellow senator from Vermont to endorse him on day one, something that he couldn't do last time. That speaks to potentially him playing the game a bit better than last time. 

I still suspect that his primary weakness is his inability and lack of desire to do any kind of coalition building. He has a message, he is fine with people jumping on his bandwagon and thinks they should, and is entirely uninterested in compromise or making deals. That's great for someone running to lose, but not particularly useful in a system that may result in a lot of delegates assigned to other candidates. 

And just for the record, Sanders being a frontrunner is not nearly as big a deal in the Dem primaries as it is in the winner-take-all system of the Republican primaries. Dem primaries mean proportional allocation, and those delegates stay pledged until the first round in the convention. If Sanders gets 30%, that's a big deal, but it also means he'll either have to make deals or hope someone else doesn't. And if he can't get the first ballot nomination, the superdelegates will come into play as well. 

My gut feeling is that Sanders, once again, will get completely humiliated in the South and one or two candidates are going to get a monstrous haul there. If that happens for Harris and she gets to Cali, those two things could put her so far over the top of Sanders that he has no reasonable way of winning, and most dems would happily support Harris over Sanders in the second+ ballot. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

16 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah, some poor people and non-whites do commit crime. Look, I could understand critiquing how Harris did her job in LE, but please, it sounds as if you’re ready to condemn based off of her having had the job in the first place(which is unfair we do need prosecutors) and prosecuted individuals from certain demographics.

If you judge the criminal justice system in this country to be fundamentally unjust and in need of major reform, then of course a prosecutor who upheld the status quo automatically has a strike against her.  I'm not sure what this is so controversial.  Having the job in the first place IS the critique.

3 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

Since I rarely agree with the CW on here...let me agree now.  It is mind boggling that both Dems and Republicans continue to treat Saudi Arabia and their poisonous wahhabism as an ally.  They are absolutely, by far, the worst ally we have or have had in decades.

Just wanted to chime in to agree the alliance with Saudi Arabia sucks.  It's time to either phase this out or push them to not be terrible.  And certainly not the time to give them help in the nuclear department.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

If you judge the criminal justice system in this country to be fundamentally unjust and in need of major reform, then of course a prosecutor who upheld the status quo automatically has a strike against her.  I'm not sure what this is so controversial.  Having the job in the first place IS the critique

It's "controversial" in so far as the argument that it's disqualifying for a candidate, which is both unfair and entirely stupid for trying to recruit quality candidates.

[IheartIheartTesla]

I hate the staggered nature of the primaries. It is the worst way of winnowing out the field, except for all the others (like democracy itself).

The candidates will be spending an oversized amount of time getting Democrats to know them in Iowa (a state almost lost to them), and maybe New Hampshire (a state with fewer electoral college votes that probably doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things. No offense. And they do that weird split anyway). This is a structural disadvantage the ultimate winner also faces, having spent all that money and time in these low-yield states when the groundwork for the general could be laid down much earlier across the midwest and parts of the south. I'd rather there be 3-4 super Tuesdays and be done with the primaries.

[lokisnow]

52 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I hate the staggered nature of the primaries. It is the worst way of winnowing out the field, except for all the others (like democracy itself).

The candidates will be spending an oversized amount of time getting Democrats to know them in Iowa (a state almost lost to them), and maybe New Hampshire (a state with fewer electoral college votes that probably doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things. No offense. And they do that weird split anyway). This is a structural disadvantage the ultimate winner also faces, having spent all that money and time in these low-yield states when the groundwork for the general could be laid down much earlier across the midwest and parts of the south. I'd rather there be 3-4 super Tuesdays and be done with the primaries.

I’d rather have one primary in March and one runoff in June and be done with the whole damn thing. Everybody vote the same day, fuck the staggering.

[Maithanet]

58 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I hate the staggered nature of the primaries. It is the worst way of winnowing out the field, except for all the others (like democracy itself).

To me by far the stupidest part of Presidential primaries is that it's the same states every time.  A rotating system where different states get to be first would make so much more sense.  I can honestly say that if the Presidential primaries this year were in say, Arkansas and then Oregon, I would find that much more interesting than stupid Iowa and New Hampshire over and over again.  Not to mention we wouldn't have the ridiculous incentive to give Iowa whatever farm subsidies it wants because half of the Senate plans to run for President and therefore considers Iowa voters to be nearly as important as their own constituents. 

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, Mexal said:

Newest NY Times article on Trump and the hush payments.

3 hours ago, Serious Callers Only said:

https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/multiple-whistleblowers-raise-grave-concerns-with-white-house-efforts-to

laughs in republican white collar criminal

These two articles are amazing, each in its own way, thanks for sharing.

 

[Gertrude]

51 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

To me by far the stupidest part of Presidential primaries is that it's the same states every time.  A rotating system where different states get to be first would make so much more sense.  I can honestly say that if the Presidential primaries this year were in say, Arkansas and then Oregon, I would find that much more interesting than stupid Iowa and New Hampshire over and over again.  Not to mention we wouldn't have the ridiculous incentive to give Iowa whatever farm subsidies it wants because half of the Senate plans to run for President and therefore considers Iowa voters to be nearly as important as their own constituents. 

Hells fucking yeah. I've been saying this for years. I get that the US is very large and the candidates do need time to campaign. (but not two fucking years!) Divide the US into regions, primaries on the same day (or within a few days), then on to the next. Rotate the order and there you go. I would fucking love that.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Maithanet said:

We'll see.  It's hard to believe Bloomburg wouldn't have better things to do than lose badly in the Democratic primary, but billionaires usually love hearing themselves talk. 

I suspect that if he wants to run, he's seeing if he can burn more money than the Joker.

Seriously he has exactly no chance whatsoever to win.

3 hours ago, Fez said:

I don't know why folks like Wilbur Ross or Rex Tillerson wanted to be part of Trump's cabinet either, but here we are. I think some wealthy folks have a skewed view of the glamor of cabinet positions. Even the current opportunities for corruption aren't that enticing once you're that rich. And, as folks like Sheldon Adelson have shown over and over; you don't need to be part of the cabinet to get in on the really important corruption.

 

I suspect a lot of them are interested in the title and having a place in history. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

To me by far the stupidest part of Presidential primaries is that it's the same states every time.  A rotating system where different states get to be first would make so much more sense.  I can honestly say that if the Presidential primaries this year were in say, Arkansas and then Oregon, I would find that much more interesting than stupid Iowa and New Hampshire over and over again.  Not to mention we wouldn't have the ridiculous incentive to give Iowa whatever farm subsidies it wants because half of the Senate plans to run for President and therefore considers Iowa voters to be nearly as important as their own constituents. 

Break the country up into six regions and randomly select the order. Campaign in each region for two to three weeks and then have the vote. Simple, sweet and campaigns save a lot of travel money. 

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

I suspect a lot of them are interested in the title and having a place in history. 

And apparently given that they don't have to recuse themselves or set up any trusts that actually matter, there's no real downside to it. They can basically pass any regulations they want or remove regulations they want without any real issue, and it's all just fine. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On 2/18/2019 at 8:30 AM, Gertrude said:

(Jussie Smollet attack for reference)

This is the main reason I don't like Booker. He is an opportunist and grand-stander and I don't really trust he has core beliefs other than self-promotion. Gillibrand too, to a lesser degree. I mean, politicians in general are self-promoters and lime-light hogs, but he seems to do it especially clumsily. We're not supposed to see through the act so easily.

Agreed. I'd encourage people to recall his behavior during the Kavanaugh hearings. He acted like he was going to risk sacrificing his career (which was never going to happen) by releasing some super damning confidential information (which turned out to be nothing). He may be a genuinely good person, but to me it feels so phony. 

Regarding Gillibrand, I remain 100% convinced that she was calculating how it would help her presidential ambitions when she stabbed Franken in the back.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And apparently given that they don't have to recuse themselves or set up any trusts that actually matter, there's no real downside to it. They can basically pass any regulations they want or remove regulations they want without any real issue, and it's all just fine. 

 

Most don't even have to work that hard. Obviously the SoS and SoD do, but there's a lot of cake cabinet positions that appear to require little to no effort to succeed at. Just don't piss your pants in public. 

[Gertrude]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Agreed. I'd encourage people to recall his behavior during the Kavanaugh hearings. He acted like he was going to risk sacrificing his career (which was never going to happen) by releasing some super damning confidential information (which turned out to be nothing). He may be a genuinely good person, but to me it feels so phony. 

Regarding Gillibrand, I remain 100% convinced that she was calculating how it would help her presidential ambitions when she stabbed Franken in the back.

Yep. I bought it when Booker was helping shovel people out of a snowstorm when he was mayor, but not anymore. And Gillibrand - that's what I was thinking about when I mentioned her. She was determined to be the leading voice on that issue and jumped too far ahead of it IMO. That and an interview I saw her give where she gave an 'impassioned' speech about ... some belief she has or something. It came off as trying too hard and very phony. Had a hard time concentrating on what she was saying because of how she was saying it.

Look, I know politicians are calculated, but don't make it this easy to spot. OK?

[Frog Eater]

28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Break the country up into six regions and randomly select the order. Campaign in each region for two to three weeks and then have the vote. Simple, sweet and campaigns save a lot of travel money. 

or even rotate the order. have 6 regions, Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Deep South, Southwest, Northwest and just rotate the order. 

[DMC]

Just now, Gertrude said:

Yep. I bought it when Booker was helping shovel people out of a snowstorm when he was mayor, but not anymore.

Not sure if I've mentioned this before, but Booker actually kind of reminds me of John Edwards.  Have to qualify this quite a bit:  First, no I don't mean the disgraced and disgusting things Edwards did to end his career.  I'm thinking more when he was campaigning in 2004 and 2008.  There was always this part of Edwards that struck me as a snake oil salesman.  Now, second, Booker certainly isn't at that level - I believe he generally believes what he advocates and emphasizes - but there does seem to be a bit of..All About Eve about it, if that makes sense.  Like, he's the guy who'd you work on a group project with where you did most the work.  Then, when it came to present he'd do most of the presentation while implying he did all the work.