US Politics: Reaching the Tipping Point

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

I have similar feelings - in real life.  My dad was a very angry man growing up so I naturally avoid any type of confrontation these days, in some ways to my detriment.  But online?  Meh, it can be fun sometimes.  I view the two entirely differently.

I hear you.

[Durckad]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I hear you.

Too agreeable and not confrontational enough. 

I award you 0 internet points, sir!

[Demetri]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Obviously I disagree with anyone telling you "they" don't want you, but I think this tends to get a little overblown and is often more a reflection of the resentment whites hold rather than the actions of pushy leftists.  I have been told similar things in these threads on occasion.  But that doesn't affect my political preferences.  And I don't see any reason it should for anybody, frankly.  White racial resentment is a powerful reason Trump won, and almost certainly represents most of the Obama-Trump voters, so I agree the left should calm down/knock it off a bit.  But you seem to be a high information voter.  That shouldn't impact high information voters.

Meh, reelections are always about the incumbent when it comes to the presidency.  And considering his unpopularity, it's wise campaign strategy to keep the focus on hating Trump.  Is that a long term solution?  Of course not.  But there's plenty of policy out there being debated and proposed.  Hell, with all these candidates there's probably too much policy being bandied about.  So I agree it's quite disorganized right now, but that's pretty innate to the varied constituencies of the party.

My home town is literally famous for racial issues and the civil rights movement. I was surprised by someone trying to make interested parties leave, but our damn city seal has two phrases on it: "Cradle of the Confederacy" and "Birthplace of Civil Rights". Both. Same seal. I'm super fortunate to have gotten to meet Bryan Stevenson, I would routinely drive by MLK's church, the former slave market, BB King's house, the Rosa Parks bench stop. Amazing history. But that history only exists because of exceptional discord. But let me assure you that this was not something purely imagined. My then girlfriend (mixed race, adopted, from Montgomery, very political and relatively well connected at SPLC, very active and passionate) basically said that the guy who spoke the loudest is basically a racist and to not take it too personally. This isn't a "woe is me, so unfairly judged" as much as it is something that I can speak on from direct experience. That isn't to say anything of what you said was wrong, just wanted to clarify that this wasn't because I felt "awkward" or "sensed their glares" or anything like that.  I'm sure if I'd have kept coming he'd have been talked down by others or come around himself. But it wasn't in that moment. I get that it is a political statement, but damn...

Regarding incumbent and Trump as focal point. Obviously for this election Trump is a huge focal point. Dems will paint it as the 2nd major battle in a cultural war in American politics, with Trump holding the first victory. Targets will be: His personality (self-explanatory), failed promises, convincing America that Trump was bad for the economy (job approval and short scale economic trends have a tight causal relationship depending on how it's weighed). This is especially huge for Trump as it was a major selling point and essentially the only thing that even approached making him qualified (or should I say, were asserted as qualifications). He's going right back to the economy because they're keeping his numbers viable. Preempting that both offensively (question the record) and defensively (policy formation) . Hit the Green Deal but not too hard, only  so as to pique youth interest and mobilize a younger demographic but without presenting it in the form of a solvent plan but more as an overarching ideal that stabilizes the Dem party. Casting doubt on FIRST (must be first) the efficacy of "America first" foreign policy and then questioning the sincerity of such promises. Then, with tangible complaints, circle back to character issues and questions of how he comports himself as president (is he "presidential")

I think a major mistake would be to go too personal when it is 1 v 1 and before the more substantive issues above have been well-handled. The personal critique is already playing but the fodder is nearly endless and should be well used. Perhaps a sacrificial lamb who is willing to be a dick about it without compromising the more viable candidates. And please, for the love of god, pick a damn candidate with Trump directly in mind. My research has suggested that Elizabeth Warren doesn't do well against generic candidates. I worry that she is still where the left-moderate are flocking, some of the folks I consider to be highly intelligent and often are partners in pretty in depth conversations. I have considerable concerns about her viability outside of primaries. But I dunno who that person is right now, tbh. I've had a lot going on so I can't say that I'm super caught up. But Warren seems to be the horse with the best name but I really worry about her on this track.

For all of these reasons the party platform will be par for the course against a sitting President (as you astutely point out.) But I meant beyond that and moving forward. United disapproval is great for a coalition in an election. I am less optimistic about the staying power of it, the ability to keep that tent above heads. It could easily be detrimental. But speculation abounds. I've enjoyed chatting with you @DMC . BTW, I'm a huge dead head, love the avatar.

[Demetri]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Demetri,

Is this a personal or a political observation?  I’m wondering where you are going with this?

It has absolutely 0 predictive power and I don't mean to say that antifa=bad humans. Because of my proximity I learned a bit about it and what I heard was straight up fascism. But it was really an aside. They were just crappy people in general and I don't think it was causally connected to antifa. But I didn't like them, and I didn't like the message they were presenting (loudly and often). I maybe shouldn't have mentioned antifa because we can talk about that whole thing but it was really more an aside. I hate the politics. But one of the guys tried to steal from me and the other tried to convince a girl I was seeing that I was cheating on her with like a ton of women. 

Very much a personal observation because as much as they provided a human face to a larger, generally masked, organization, I was more talking about my background than saying anything meaningful. With that said, I read the handbook, I heard them speak of it and why and what. They were pleased to show me their sticker laden t-ball bats. The whole thing was highly distasteful. The relevance is that they exposed me to the radical left literally within my home.

[DMC]

33 minutes ago, Demetri said:

Targets will be: His personality (self-explanatory), failed promises, convincing America that Trump was bad for the economy (job approval and short scale economic trends have a tight causal relationship depending on how it's weighed). This is especially huge for Trump as it was a major selling point and essentially the only thing that even approached making him qualified (or should I say, were asserted as qualifications). He's going right back to the economy because they're keeping his numbers viable. Preempting that both offensively (question the record) and defensively (policy formation) . Hit the Green Deal but not too hard, only  so as to pique youth interest and mobilize a younger demographic but without presenting it in the form of a solvent plan but more as an overarching ideal that stabilizes the Dem party. Casting doubt on FIRST (must be first) the efficacy of "America first" foreign policy and then questioning the sincerity of such promises. Then, with tangible complaints, circle back to character issues and questions of how he comports himself as president (is he "presidential")

Generally agree with this as a basic outline.  To quibble, I think you want to keep the focus on domestic issues, don't see much point in putting much emphasis on foreign policy.  Well - foreign trade - yes you should emphasize his harmful policy in that regard, but we're not fighting a major war, so in that area the public is generally gonna view it as a plus for him.  Point out his capitulation to Russia/Putin and idiocy with North Korea/Iran when it comes up, sure, but that's it.

37 minutes ago, Demetri said:

I think a major mistake would be to go too personal when it is 1 v 1 and before the more substantive issues above have been well-handled. The personal critique is already playing but the fodder is nearly endless and should be well used. Perhaps a sacrificial lamb who is willing to be a dick about it without compromising the more viable candidates. And please, for the love of god, pick a damn candidate with Trump directly in mind. My research has suggested that Elizabeth Warren doesn't do well against generic candidates. I worry that she is still where the left-moderate are flocking, some of the folks I consider to be highly intelligent and often are partners in pretty in depth conversations. I have considerable concerns about her viability outside of primaries. But I dunno who that person is right now, tbh. I've had a lot going on so I can't say that I'm super caught up. But Warren seems to be the horse with the best name but I really worry about her on this track.

Well, I think the anti-Trump message is going to be inherently "personal."  Bottom line is the argument against him is ultimately derived from the fact his personality and behavior is nothing close to what should be a POTUS.  You do bring up an interesting point with the "sacrificial lamb" thought.  I think it's important that the VP pick is an attack dog, so as to let the nominee stay above the inevitable sophomoric twitter sniping that Trump will engage in.  This makes me less enthused about Beto or Booker as VP candidates.  Warren would probably actually be pretty good in that role.  Harris could too.  Buttigieg?  Not his style.  We'll see, way too early to think about it anyway.

As for Warren, I have my own misgivings about her as the nominee - I just think she's a rather inept on the politics end of things, although she has shown improvement lately.  As I've stated many times here, my preference is Harris.

44 minutes ago, Demetri said:

I've enjoyed chatting with you @DMC . BTW, I'm a huge dead head, love the avatar.

  If you love the dead and asoiaf, you should check out this thread.  It's four years old, but it was a lot of fun.

[Zorral]

Imagine the outrage if a woman announced here that she trashes 53% of white men as a matter of course.

Stats and poli sci are how people lose elections, because they are what they are -- and they are NOT politics. It wasn't poli sci and stats that put #rum# in the white house.  Not even VOTER STATS put him there,

You guys are stuck.

 

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Stats and poli sci are how people lose elections, because they are what they are -- and they are NOT politics. It wasn't poli sci and stats that put #rum# in the white house.  Not even VOTER STATS put him there,

This makes absolutely no sense, and is frankly difficult to even parse.  But I like it as a representation of how the far left can be just as anti-empiricism as the far right.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

This makes absolutely no sense, and is frankly difficult to even parse.  But I like it as a representation of how the far left can be just as anti-empiricism as the far right.

Actually both extremes reject empiricism. I think it is the nature of the extremes to want facts to fit their perception rather than fitting perception to facts.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

33 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Imagine the outrage if a woman announced here that she trashes 53% of white men as a matter of course.

No. If you vote for a guy while knowing that he thinks he can sexually assault you, mockery is required. To say the least.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think it is the nature of the extremes to want facts to fit their perception rather than fitting perception to facts.

I mean, we're all guilty of this to some extent.  But agreed, the further to either extreme you get, there's a tendency to have less self-awareness about doing that.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Actually both extremes reject empiricism. I think it is the nature of the extremes to want facts to fit their perception rather than fitting perception to facts.

I wish I could recall his name, but I believe there was a French crowd psychologist who predicted that polarization in the media would inevitably lead to a more polarized populous that in turn would give up on the pursuit of facts in exchange for media sources that simply reinforce their world views. It would seem that he and yourself are correct, for the most part.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

who predicted that polarization in the media would inevitably lead to a more polarized populous that in turn would give up on the pursuit of facts in exchange for media sources that simply reinforce their world views.

This is essentially what Mark Prior has been researching for the past couple decades:

Quote

Congress and some newer media outlets have added more partisan messages to a continuing supply of mostly centrist news. Although political attitudes of most Americans have remained fairly moderate, evidence points to some polarization among the politically involved. Proliferation of media choices lowered the share of less interested, less partisan voters and thereby made elections more partisan. But evidence for a causal link between more partisan messages and changing attitudes or behaviors is mixed at best. Measurement problems hold back research on partisan selective exposure and its consequences. Ideologically one-sided news exposure may be largely confined to a small, but highly involved and influential, segment of the population. There is no firm evidence that partisan media are making ordinary Americans more partisan.

 

[Martell Spy]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Actually both extremes reject empiricism. I think it is the nature of the extremes to want facts to fit their perception rather than fitting perception to facts.

Yet the far right is far more likely to actually kill people. Antifa was made by the right into this enormous threat. I've been waiting for them to drop a body and it has not happened yet.

Quote

 

The Education Department appointee who oversees the government's $1.5 trillion student loan portfolio on Tuesday stepped down from the board of an organization that owns some of that debt, after POLITICO asked about a potential conflict of interest.

Mark Brown, a retired major general in the U.S. Air Force, in March was selected by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to be the new head of the department’s Office of Federal Student Aid. Until Tuesday, he also served as an unpaid member of the board of directors of KnowledgeWorks, a non-profit foundation that holds about $30 million in federally guaranteed student loans.

Several ethics experts said that arrangement raised concerns about a potential conflict of interest because Brown's unit is responsible for regulating and overseeing student loans backed by the government, including those that are owned by KnowledgeWorks.

 

DeVos’ student aid chief quits foundation board following questions on conflict of interest

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/11/devos-student-aid-chief-quits-foundation-1522518

[Fragile Bird]

Stupid question from a foreigner.

If Biden won the nomination (or in fact, anyone else) could he choose Obama as his VP?

Just wondering, and ignoring the question about whether or not Obama would accept.

[ThinkerX]

31 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Stupid question from a foreigner.

If Biden won the nomination (or in fact, anyone else) could he choose Obama as his VP?

Just wondering, and ignoring the question about whether or not Obama would accept.

For the top three democratic front runners - Biden, Sanders, and Warren - the VP pic is crucial, given their age and a significant possibility they would not complete even a single term.  

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, Zorral said:

Imagine the outrage if a woman announced here that she trashes 53% of white men as a matter of course.

Stats and poli sci are how people lose elections, because they are what they are -- and they are NOT politics. It wasn't poli sci and stats that put #rum# in the white house.  Not even VOTER STATS put him there,

You guys are stuck.

 

Here, in this thread? I imagine it would get almost universal praise, when in the context of voting for Trump.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

Stupid question from a foreigner.

If Biden won the nomination (or in fact, anyone else) could he choose Obama as his VP?

Just wondering, and ignoring the question about whether or not Obama would accept.

No.  Under the 12th Amendment the Vice-President must be qualified to hold the office of President.  Under the 22nd Amendment President Obama is no longer  qualified to hold the office of President.

[Altherion]

54 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Stupid question from a foreigner.

If Biden won the nomination (or in fact, anyone else) could he choose Obama as his VP?

Just wondering, and ignoring the question about whether or not Obama would accept.

It's debated, but most likely not. The 12th amendment ends with:

Quote

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

whereas the 22nd amendment says:

Quote

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

There is some wiggle room here in that being ineligible to be elected President can be taken to be distinct from being ineligible to the office of President altogether, but no two-term President has ever been enough of a sophist to put this idea to the test.

[Martell Spy]

7 hours ago, Altherion said:

It's debated, but most likely not. The 12th amendment ends with:

whereas the 22nd amendment says:

There is some wiggle room here in that being ineligible to be elected President can be taken to be distinct from being ineligible to the office of President altogether, but no two-term President has ever been enough of a sophist to put this idea to the test.

Make Obama a Cabinet secretary, then have a Designated Survivor scenario play out.

Kamala Harris: Justice Dept. has ‘no choice’ but to charge Trump if he loses in 2020

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/12/kamala-harris-trump-justice-obstruction-1361467

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said the Justice Department would have “no choice” but to charge President Donald Trump with obstruction of justice if he finished his term without being impeached.

Quote

 

Speaking with NPR’s Scott Detrow in an interview published Wednesday, Harris said special counsel Robert Mueller essentially set the stage for criminal charges against Trump with his investigation into the 2016 election. Longstanding Justice Department policy says that a sitting president cannot be indicted, and Harris said that was essentially the only reason Mueller did not charge Trump.

All that would change in 2021 if the Democratic presidential hopeful were in the White House and the Justice Department were under her watch, she said.

“I believe that they would have no choice, and that they should,” Harris said of the Justice Department’s charging Trump with obstruction. “I believe there should be accountability. Everyone should be held accountable. And the president is not above the law.”

 

 

[drawkcabi]

1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

Make Obama a Cabinet secretary, then have a Designated Survivor scenario play out.

Kamala Harris: Justice Dept. has ‘no choice’ but to charge Trump if he loses in 2020

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/12/kamala-harris-trump-justice-obstruction-1361467

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said the Justice Department would have “no choice” but to charge President Donald Trump with obstruction of justice if he finished his term without being impeached.

 

I think whoever is the next Democrat president (please oh please oh please oh please in 2021!!!!!) should nominate Obama to take Justice Ginsberg's (who will almost certainly retire if as soon as a D is president again) seat on the SCOTUS.