U.S. Politics: By Gawd King, That's Joe Biden's Music!!!!

[davos]

33 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And then there's other things, like convincing a state not to cast any votes, which actually happened in 1789 with New York.

I don't know if this is really relevant to current events.  Two states had not even ratified the constitution yet and New York was being dysfunctional.  The procedures were new to everyone and there were bound to be complications.   While we have had various electoral shenanigans and oddities since then, none really provide precedent for suspending a presidential election during a crisis.  We've held elections during wars and depressions, and most notably for this discussion, a midterm election in 1918 while the Flu was still raging across the country.   Not saying that if things are really bad then, that Trump or his supporters in congress won't try something, or they won't try more forceful voter suppression tactics with the justification of public safety, but there would be no ground for them to stand on to do so besides brute power.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

heh

 

 

This is so lame.  If someone is considering voting for a candidate but won't because they don't like some of the other people who support the same policies, it was never about the policies to begin with.  No one is asking them to move into an MTV RealWorld house with 7 random Bernie Sanders voters.  It wouldn't matter how 'nice' anybody was, they'd always find some rationalization.

It's almost like they need to really feel better about backing a guy who has repeatedly looked to trim spending by going after entitlements versus military spending, who has blatantly lied about his civil rights involvement, about being arrested in South Africa trying to see Nelson Mandela, who supports predatory credit card companies over down-and-out constituents (thanks for not being able to have student loan debt discharged in bankruptcy), who has backed drug companies over patients, who totally endorses the US's imperialist and murderous foreign policy.   

If you don't care about those things, that's perfectly fine!  But let's not pretend that Sanders' Twitter followers are going to be writing legislation while he's in office.   

"I'm not sure your coalition wants me, so i'm worried that your universal healthcare won't include me.  Instead I'm going with the guy who tells people to vote for Trump".

 

[Fez]

Always trust Louie Gohmert to be the biggest asshole in Congress. Always.

Pelosi should order the Sgt-at-arms to bar him from the Capitol grounds.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, davos said:

I don't know if this is really relevant to current events.  Two states had not even ratified the constitution yet and New York was being dysfunctional.  The procedures were new to everyone and there were bound to be complications.   While we have had various electoral shenanigans and oddities since then, none really provide precedent for suspending a presidential election during a crisis.  We've held elections during wars and depressions, and most notably for this discussion, a midterm election in 1918 while the Flu was still raging across the country.   Not saying that if things are really bad then, that Trump or his supporters in congress won't try something, or they won't try more forceful voter suppression tactics with the justification of public safety, but there would be no ground for them to stand on to do so besides brute power.

 

It's an unlikely case, but it's important to understand because it can potentially happen again. States can be left out of the process, legally, and the constitution does provide for this. This is, IMO, one of the easiest ways for Trump to cause an issue with the election - pressure a Republican governor to delay that state's election results. 

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

This is so lame.  If someone is considering voting for a candidate but won't because they don't like some of the other people who support the same policies, it was never about the policies to begin with.  No one is asking them to move into an MTV RealWorld house with 7 random Bernie Sanders voters.  It wouldn't matter how 'nice' anybody was, they'd always find some rationalization.

It's almost like they need to really feel better about backing a guy who has repeatedly looked to trim spending by going after entitlements versus military spending, who has blatantly lied about his civil rights involvement, about being arrested in South Africa trying to see Nelson Mandela, who supports predatory credit card companies over down-and-out constituents (thanks for not being able to have student loan debt discharged in bankruptcy), who has backed drug companies over patients, who totally endorses the US's imperialist and murderous foreign policy.   

 If you don't care about those things, that's perfectly fine!  But let's not pretend that Sanders' Twitter followers are going to be writing legislation while he's in office.   

"I'm not sure your coalition wants me, so i'm worried that your universal healthcare won't include me.  Instead I'm going with the guy who tells people to vote for Trump".

In this case, it was about being directly harassed or vilified by people and associating it. Do you really want to be part of a group that has a bunch of people who hate you and mock you to your face? I mean, think about this argument for, say, black people joining the GOP. It's basically the same notion here, yet it's bizarre to think that the people who welcome those who hate you are going to accept your policy goals? 

And as to writing policy, well, yes, I think David Sirota is going to be part of the policy there. I think that if you go on Chapo, chances are good Chapo is going to have some say in things. 

And ultimately it's not about policy at all, because Sanders and Biden have the exact same policy endpoint in practice. If you're talking about actual policy, it is important to believe your concerns are going to be included in it. It's about whether you feel like you'd be part of the process, and Sanders so far has not done a good job of convincing that this is going to be the case. 

 

[argonak]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Again, I said that I don't know how bad it'll be. If polling indicates people are terrified of going out to vote, especially older people who are the most at-risk, I think that Pelosi wouldn't be able to control her caucus - especially if the alternative was millions of old people choosing not to vote at all. 

And that's the real rub here - Trump doesn't have to declare an emergency and postpone or cancel the election. He can simply tell his supporters that there is no danger, and Dems will be telling their supporters that there is one, and let human nature take its course. Put out a lot of negative ads targeting democrats on facebook about the dangers of polling places, the risk of viruses, and just win that way. 

Wouldn't it just be easier for states to ramp up vote by mail?  My state already has vote by mail as the norm.   I think it should be the norm nation wide, personally.  Voting in person seems really stupid.  

[maarsen]

5 minutes ago, argonak said:

Wouldn't it just be easier for states to ramp up vote by mail?  My state already has vote by mail as the norm.   I think it should be the norm nation wide, personally.  Voting in person seems really stupid.  

But, but.... how will voter suppresion work? 

 

 

 

 

Sarcasm alert. 

[Zorral]

Never in the history of the world has a single individual destroyed the economy of the entire frackin' world.  Again tell me he's not the Saboteur Wizard, highest level.

I've been describing the many easy scenarios by how the November elections can be suppressed, restricted, canceled, disregarded -- and National Emergency, plus his army.  This is not a bungler.

He hasn't got anything else but this one superpower -- destruction -- and he's wielding over the entire planet. Even his adored buddy Putin may get screwed.

 

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

11 hours ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

Idk about that. She may be the most popular brown socialist since Jesus, and the far Left is going to need somebody to rally around. Bernie won't be around forever, y'know. Once we eliminate all the white people (which is of course the goal of the far Left) I think it will be easier to get women in office.

I think the far Left is demonized more consistently as predominantly white and male, no? Either way, nothing in the movement I've seen wants to eliminate anyone but billionaires. I'm sure you got your fringe elements out there, but the far left is not about hurting others. 

As for AOC, she brings a lot of qualities to the table that Sanders doesn't (despite the effort to argue otherwise from establishment Dems)--she works with the party, she doesn't act as a spoiler to halt plans, and while she speaks her mind, I think she does a great job of listening and showing she cares about and validates other people's opinions. Look to her recent interview on the View for evidence of her ability to work from a position of positivist in a hostile environment. 

Now, I don't want to see her run in 2024 as I think her age would cause people to not vote for her as much as anything else. I think by 2028, perhaps the revolutionized young core of supporters right now will be getting out and voting. Maybe we'll have effectively worked to change the voting patterns of the very young. When I was a kid, we were told voting is important, but we never talked about it much more than that. Schools are now emphasizing education on getting future voters familiarized with the process. I have a lot of hope going forward (if we survive climate doom).

If AOC ran in 2024, barring something terrible, she'd have my vote and anyone else who wanted it would have an uphill battle. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, maarsen said:

But, but.... how will voter suppresion work?  

Send voting packages with the wrong return addresses to areas with high diversity? 

[Larry of the Lawn]

27 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's an unlikely case, but it's important to understand because it can potentially happen again. States can be left out of the process, legally, and the constitution does provide for this. This is, IMO, one of the easiest ways for Trump to cause an issue with the election - pressure a Republican governor to delay that state's election results. 

In this case, it was about being directly harassed or vilified by people and associating it. Do you really want to be part of a group that has a bunch of people who hate you and mock you to your face? I mean, think about this argument for, say, black people joining the GOP. It's basically the same notion here, yet it's bizarre to think that the people who welcome those who hate you are going to accept your policy goals? 

And as to writing policy, well, yes, I think David Sirota is going to be part of the policy there. I think that if you go on Chapo, chances are good Chapo is going to have some say in things. 

And ultimately it's not about policy at all, because Sanders and Biden have the exact same policy endpoint in practice. If you're talking about actual policy, it is important to believe your concerns are going to be included in it. It's about whether you feel like you'd be part of the process, and Sanders so far has not done a good job of convincing that this is going to be the case. 

 

So Biden is going to being taking policy cues from the MIC, the credit card industry, his across the aisle buddies?  Got it.  

Will still vote for him in November, because Trump is worse, despite the fact that some of Biden's supporters are absolute shitheads.

It's not like I have to have dinner with him or figure out a chore schedule. 

I do think the Sanders campaign made some mistakes in outreach.  Which have been discussed here.  But if you want to use the Twitter standard you are literally left with no candidates.  Sanders, Warren, Harris, Buttigieg, Biden, all have had supporters harass people online.  Sanders may have the largest following on there but thats not why voters over / under 45 is the big split.  If it was the attitude I doubt you'd see him cleaning up with younger voters.

Also, if you want to look at those who have suffered, as groups, more than anyone else as a result of Trump's policies, let look at who Latino and Muslim communities are supporting.  

Re: bolded - we both know that is absolutely not true.  Sanders foreign policy and administrative agencies would be handled very differently than Biden.  Legislation wise, yes, it's largely up to Congress, but on close votes there's always the bully pulpit or someone afraid of getting primaried.

[Kalbear]

11 minutes ago, argonak said:

Wouldn't it just be easier for states to ramp up vote by mail?  My state already has vote by mail as the norm.   I think it should be the norm nation wide, personally.  Voting in person seems really stupid.  

Some states do, and that'd help, but it's hard to go from some absentee to everyone, especially in a short time. It takes a lot of resources dedicated to counting and processing, and I suspect most states can't ramp up that quickly. 

Our state does vote by mail entirely (Washington, home of the coronavirus, don't lick your envelope!) but it's taken about 8 years of refining to get it to this point. It's not reasonable to expect states to drop their whole system and go to this right away.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

So Biden is going to being taking policy cues from the MIC, the credit card industry, his across the aisle buddies?  Got it.  

I'm not sure how much of a burn this is, but...yes? And he'll also be taking policy cues from black people, old people and mainstream democrats. 

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

I do think the Sanders campaign made some mistakes in outreach.  Which have been discussed here.  But if you want to use the Twitter standard you are literally left with no candidates.  Sanders, Warren, Harris, Buttigieg, Biden, all have had supporters harass people online.  Sanders may have the largest following on there but thats not why voters over / under 45 is the big split.  If it was the attitude I doubt you'd see him cleaning up with younger voters. 

They all have, but Sanders has 4-5 times as many harassing tweets, and more to the point no one else has someone like Chapo on their side - and that's a major issue. I thought this article broke it down well. 

I don't think that it's a massive issue, mind you. I don't think that explains the 45+ divide that we're seeing; what I suspect is that right now, those with kids and families and stable jobs and careers are not particularly interested in a revolution. Those without it apparently are - but also they're apparently not interested enough to vote. 

Ultimately Sanders banked heavily on being able to ride a very fractured election with his base and basically nothing else, and so far it looks like that failed. Add to that fears of a virus and the last people want is a revolutionary whose followers drive off anyone else who isn't Sanders.

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

 Also, if you want to look at those who have suffered, as groups, more than anyone else as a result of Trump's policies, let look at who Latino and Muslim communities are supporting. 

I don't think this is quite as good an argument as you think it is for accepting people's abuse and scorn. 

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

Re: bolded - we both know that is absolutely not true.  Sanders foreign policy and administrative agencies would be handled very differently than Biden.  Legislation wise, yes, it's largely up to Congress, but on close votes there's always the bully pulpit or someone afraid of getting primaried.

This is also not a great argument for people who are being scorned by Sanders supporters to join up with Sanders. I happen to agree that foreign policy would likely be a difference between them, but again - do you feel like your group or you are going to have a voice in that? Or are you going to be shut out because of others screaming? 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

You really don't have a clue about FATCA do you?
In fact, have you actually taken the time to read anything at all on this issue? Because it sure looks like you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

3 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

FATCA works for the US because they can bully people with their financial strength. It's reciprocal in theory, but really how many other countries tax their citizens for income earned outside their country? Other countries have to satisfy the US requirements, but does the US do it for the other countries?

 

2 hours ago, Ran said:

 

The US joins Myanmar, Eritrea, and Hungary in this policy. 

 

So far as I'm aware, the IRS and Tgreasury does not provide information to Myanmar, Eritrea, or Hungary on income their citizens make within the U.S. It also fails to uphold reporting with most countries in which it has signed tax treaties -- seen many complaints from Swedish and other European tax authorities that the U.S. expects FATCA to be adhered to but won't reciprocate with agreed to information sharing unless they jump through hoops.

Hi!  I feel like someone cast the #summon a tax lawyer spell.

Two things to chat about here.  First is FATCA

FATCA exists so that the US can get information about money held in  accounts outside the US (as broadly defined - includes pools of capital as well).  Pre-FATCA (and actually, pre-BEPS and the various other initiatives running through the OECD and the EU right now but I digress), it was relatively easy for a wealthy US citizen to take advantage of strict bank secrecy and privacy laws to stash millions of dollars outside the US tax net.  One could view FATCA as a sledgehammer used to kill a fly.  However, the US had tried LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of different ways to get access to information previously, and none of them worked.  FATCA did.  FATCA is a giant, massive, horrifying pain in the neck, most particularly for non-US banks that are in countries that do not have a FATCA treaty/agreement with the US and US citizens that are trying to bank with a non-multi-national (i.e., local) bank. The various FATCA intergovernmental agreements have largely streamlined the process for everyone else.  But it has generally worked.  

So then there is the question about our worldwide system of taxation versus a territorial system of taxation like most other Western countries. We've had a worldwide system since the early 1960s.  It's actually non-crazy given how our economy is set up.  The idea (particularly post-tax reform) is that US persons cannot defer indefinitely income and gains by finding a way to place them in low(er) (or no) tax non-US jurisdictions.  Given that the US tends to be IP- and service- heavy, with less manufacturing, this makes sense because it means that the US gets a piece of all of the profit generated (particularly) by the IP generated in the US (and there are special safeguards around off-shoring IP to try to keep it that way). Pre-tax reform, however, given the accretion of rules, we were worldwide in theory, territorial in practice (if I had all day I could explain). These days, it's the opposite.  We in theory have a semi-territorial system, but in practice it is even more worldwide than before.   

[Ran]

2 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

is that US persons cannot defer indefinitely income and gains by finding a way to place them in low(er) (or no) tax non-US jurisdictions.

But US businesses, on the other hand...

And yeah, FATCA is a pain in the ass. My bank here in Sweden nearly washed its hands of me at one point several years ago because they were uncertain how much of a hassle they wanted, but they fortunately relented.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

4 hours ago, Ran said:

I’m not going to have propaganda  videos constantly cropping up here.  The Washington Monthly has already debunked this stuff.

It doesn't matter if this debunking was 100 percent correct, that's the point. But that article doesn't even debunk it, it makes an argument based on some evidence (and sometimes some suspect interpretation of the evidence). The article effectively describes issues of stuttering. There are also links to dementia and issues like stuttering becoming more pronounced than they were previously. You can't know if Biden doesn't have cognitive decline, but he wants to win, so it is incumbent on his campaign to address this in a way that is satisfactory. The Washington Monthly hasn't done that. People will form their opinions, and the longer they hold these views, the harder it is to counteract those opinions.

I took a creative writing class long ago as an undergrad, and I remember during group critiques, people might receive the feedback of "this doesn't feel real." The writer would respond with, "You're wrong, this is exactly how the event happened." The professor chimed in with, "That may be, but it doesn't ring true to your readers, your audience. Just because something is true doesn't mean it actually rings true. You need to adapt it so your readers won't stop reading." Or in this case, stop voting in November.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

This is so lame.  If someone is considering voting for a candidate but won't because they don't like some of the other people who support the same policies, it was never about the policies to begin with.  No one is asking them to move into an MTV RealWorld house with 7 random Bernie Sanders voters.  It wouldn't matter how 'nice' anybody was, they'd always find some rationalization.

It's almost like they need to really feel better about backing a guy who has repeatedly looked to trim spending by going after entitlements versus military spending, who has blatantly lied about his civil rights involvement, about being arrested in South Africa trying to see Nelson Mandela, who supports predatory credit card companies over down-and-out constituents (thanks for not being able to have student loan debt discharged in bankruptcy), who has backed drug companies over patients, who totally endorses the US's imperialist and murderous foreign policy.   

If you don't care about those things, that's perfectly fine!  But let's not pretend that Sanders' Twitter followers are going to be writing legislation while he's in office.   

"I'm not sure your coalition wants me, so i'm worried that your universal healthcare won't include me.  Instead I'm going with the guy who tells people to vote for Trump".

 

Agreed. This is exactly how I reconciled I will vote for Biden if it comes to it. I don't have to suffer living in a house with the smug supporters.

[Larry of the Lawn]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm not sure how much of a burn this is, but...yes? And he'll also be taking policy cues from black people, old people and mainstream democrats. 

They all have, but Sanders has 4-5 times as many harassing tweets, and more to the point no one else has someone like Chapo on their side - and that's a major issue. I thought this article broke it down well. 

I don't think that it's a massive issue, mind you. I don't think that explains the 45+ divide that we're seeing; what I suspect is that right now, those with kids and families and stable jobs and careers are not particularly interested in a revolution. Those without it apparently are - but also they're apparently not interested enough to vote. 

Ultimately Sanders banked heavily on being able to ride a very fractured election with his base and basically nothing else, and so far it looks like that failed. Add to that fears of a virus and the last people want is a revolutionary whose followers drive off anyone else who isn't Sanders.

I don't think this is quite as good an argument as you think it is for accepting people's abuse and scorn. 

This is also not a great argument for people who are being scorned by Sanders supporters to join up with Sanders. I happen to agree that foreign policy would likely be a difference between them, but again - do you feel like your group or you are going to have a voice in that? Or are you going to be shut out because of others screaming? 

Well, that's how youre framing it, it wasn't an argument for accepting abuse or scorn.  It was an argument for showing that people who are actually suffering seem to think Sanders is the way to go.  I'm not saying that despite abuse and scorn they went with Sanders, because I don't think that Sanders' campaign abused or scorned them.  I'm not sure that was the sick burn you thought it was.

As to the last paragraph?  I'm not sure what your point is.  Biden is not going to listen to me or older black people.  He's going to listen to his donors, like he's done his entire political career.  That's why it's cool to have candidates with policies, like Sanders, vs Biden whose only policies is "stuff will stay the same" and "I was Obama's VP", and "I'll keep the war machine running, but in a more favorable way to shareholders and allies than Trump".  I can vote for Sanders with some confidence that I won't be helping drone a bunch of innocent people because of oil.

[Kalbear]

Just now, larrytheimp said:

Well, that's how youre framing it, it wasn't an argument for accepting abuse or scorn.  It was an argument for showing that people who are actually suffering seem to think Sanders is the way to go.  I'm not saying that despite abuse and scorn they went with Sanders, because I don't think that Sanders' campaign abused or scorned them.  I'm not sure that was the sick burn you thought it was. 

Other people appear to feel differently as far as them being abused or scorned. 

Just now, larrytheimp said:

 As to the last paragraph?  I'm not sure what your point is.  Biden is not going to listen to me or older black people.  He's going to listen to his donors, like he's done his entire political career.  That's why it's cool to have candidates with policies, like Sanders, vs Biden whose only policies is "stuff will stay the same" and "I was Obama's VP", and "I'll keep the war machine running, but in a more favorable way to shareholders and allies than Trump".

Biden has listened to a whole host of people his entire career, and it certainly hasn't been his donors. This framing - that anyone who isn't Sanders is beholden exclusively to their donors and not the party, their constituents, etc - this is the problem. You cannot both treat the democratic party establishment as the enemy AND ask for their support. You have to either assume that Biden and Obama and a whole lot of others actually does want to make things better, or you need to assume that you will never ever gain their support no matter what. 

And ultimately what policies people run on doesn't matter that much. Biden is running on the policy of returning the soul of the US. Is it detailed? Nope! Is it broken down by how it'll be paid for? Nope! And none of that really matters that much in the end. It took me a long while to realize that detailed policy proposals aren't particularly useful for running, they're not particularly realistic, and it's more important to articulate your ideals. Sanders wants to dismantle the entire private insurance industry and replace it with government insurance. I think that's a great idea. But I don't think it'll happen, and I won't be upset if he couldn't get that done. I think Sanders would be better on foreign policy than Biden, who will likely continue the Obama doctrines with a mixed bag here and there. I think Biden will have significantly more competent staff than Sanders, but probably not as crazy a deal. 

Heck - my entire family, myself included, all voted for Sanders. 

But I can recognize his failings, and I don't have to whatabout someone else in order to excuse them. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

They all have, but Sanders has 4-5 times as many harassing tweets, and more to the point no one else has someone like Chapo on their side - and that's a major issue. I thought this article broke it down well. 

 

Lol, I love when I click on your evidence and read it. You're characterizing this (either on purpose or through unclear antecedents) that this proves Sanders has a bigger base of toxicity. 

From the article: "But the media’s obsessive focus on Bernie Bros — a term coined in 2016 to describe privileged white male Sanders supporters that doesn’t accurately describe his 2020 base — has obscured the real nature of the problem: a particular subculture among some Sanders fans that flourishes primarily on Twitter."

[DMC]

39 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Sanders foreign policy and administrative agencies would be handled very differently than Biden.

If you think Sanders will be any better than Biden in terms of managing (and rebuilding) the administrative state, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.  In fact, Sanders' approach to careerist bureaucrats will not be far removed from the mirror image of Trump's.  He has consistently demonstrated over a 30 year congressional career that he has zero respect for the expertise of careerist civil servants and how integrating their expertise can leads to favorable policy outcomes.  Compared to almost every other Democratic candidate that ran this cycle, Sanders would clearly be a disaster in this regard.