The General American Politics Thread

[Patticus]

I'm not sure that the DNC is really scared of any one Republican just yet, given that their field is so crowded with high profile names.

 

If the DNC is worried, it'll be more about the GOP propaganda machine's ability to put fear before reason in the minds of voters - they spread fear about the opposition, rather than having actual, workable policies with the math to back it up. They don't need math when they can conjure up the boogeyman with snappy, cherry picked soundbites and manufactured scandals. Do it for long enough and they might influence the tone of the whole election, which would be bad because we don't need fearmongering based on lies and misinformation to be the theme.

[Tani Coyote]

I for one look forward to the GOP primaries. If the Tea Party and mainstream GOP can't heal their rift, this could very well lead to long-term Democrat dominance.

 

*dons his GOP voter card and goes to elect whoever would cause the most beautiful trainwreck in the party*

[Nepenthe]

Until they shed the fear-mongering, dog-whistling, "good ol' days" extremist angle, I have no faith that they're not going to just put out yet another milquetoast shill who has to shamelessly cater to both ardent "fuck you, I got mine" capitalists and the hardcore religious while at the same time trying desperately to capture women and the Hispanic population who are appalled at their shitty social record (the black and LGBT votes are locked Democratic and they know that).

 

Which is fine with me. I await the inadvertent racism, sexism, and out-of-touch socioeconomic fumbles throughout the process from them, as well as our new Democratic overlord at this rate, whoever that may be.

[PSI Wind]

So far, we got Rand Paul (an Ayn Rand supporter), Ted Cruz (can't remember what he's done) and Marco Rubio (He hates that we're opening up things with Cuba) for Republicans so far and only Hilary is on the Democrat side......this is gonna SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK unless we get better Rep/Dems.

[Solkia]

Wait, only 4 canidates? How many did the last election have?

[PSI Wind]

Oh no, I should note that's all we have at the moment. Only Hilary is the one on the Democrat side that has fully confirmed that she's running.

[Autosaver]

Here comes the wild misogyny, Benghazi rehashes, deleted e-mail shit and more. No doubt they'll whip out the thing she said about being under sniper fire in Bosnia, too.

I'm sure a majority of the conservative base got scared once they saw a gay couple hold hands in her campaign video.

[Nepenthe]

Ted Cruz (can't remember what he's done)

 

He's one of the main figureheads of trying to repeal the ACA and subsequently is partly responsible for that bullshit government shutdown we had two years ago. Then there's things like his denial of man-made climate change and his dislike of homosexuals so, you know, I'm not voting for him.

[PSI Wind]

He's one of the main figureheads of trying to repeal the ACA and subsequently is partly responsible for that bullshit government shutdown we had two years ago. Then there's things like his denial of man-made climate change and his dislike of homosexuals so, you know, I'm not voting for him.

Marco Rubio is also going to try and get rid of the ACA and doesn't believe in Climate Change.

Man, this just looks awful so far.

[Solkia]

Oh no, I should note that's all we have at the moment. Only Hilary is the one on the Democrat side that has fully confirmed that she's running.

 

I was going to say, those options are horrible.

[Patticus]

Wait, only 4 canidates? How many did the last election have?

 

It's still early days yet, many more candidates will show up before 2016. I expect that the GOP primary field will be far more crowded than the Democratic one - you don't throw rowing boats up against a Man O' War like Hillary.

 

 

Marco Rubio is officially running now:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/13/politics/election-2016-marco-rubio-presidential-campaign/index.html

 

 

Dat thirst for power.

He's one of the main figureheads of trying to repeal the ACA and subsequently is partly responsible for that bullshit government shutdown we had two years ago. Then there's things like his denial of man-made climate change and his dislike of homosexuals so, you know, I'm not voting for him.

Marco Rubio is also going to try and get rid of the ACA and doesn't believe in Climate Change.

Man, this just looks awful so far.

Two deeply anti-science men (who should by rights be completely unelectable) who are also in charge of America's big scientific bodies - Rubio oversees the NOAA, and Cruz oversees NASA.

Expect to see Cruz engage in some high profile budget battles with NASA over the coming months - events designed to show voters his "fiscal responsibility" credentials and make him look like the next JFK, sending men to Mars, while also serving the purpose of clipping NASA's climate science wings. Sad times for science in America.

[Tani Coyote]

I still don't know why we give a shit about Cuba.

 

"They're kamunizt!" So's China. We don't care what economic system a country has if it's profitable for us. The wall's fallen.

 

"They're a diktatershup!" So's Saudi Arabia and several other places we hold hands with. We don't care what political system a country has if it's profitable for us.
 

It's nothing more than a pet program the descendants of Batista's ilk advocate for. Singling out Cuba makes no sense in the context of U.S. foreign policy, but don't tell the GOP that; they love the human rights mantra as evidence that Obama is awful.

 

Speaking of the GOP...

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/09/republicans-disrespect-wiccan-delivering-prayer-at-iowa-statehouse-say-jesus-would-approve-video/

 

For the first time in history a Wiccan was allowed to make the opening prayer at the state legislature.

 

The GOP's response? Many turned away from her, or prayed that she would convert, or that the legislators wouldn't be influenced by demons.

 

This is in spite of the fact that Christianity has stolen been influenced by many things from Wicca.

 

For fuck's sake. Look at what she's talking about. While she spruces her words up with some religious terminology, as a whole she's talking about her hope that the legislators would do what's right for Iowa and remember the dignity of every person. Wouldn't pretty much ANY religious viewpoint, no, even an irreligious viewpoint, espouse the same desire?

 

"I turned away because Jesus told me he would silently protest."

 

So Jesus is against people using reason and remembering the dignity of every human being. Got it.

[Patticus]

If we shouldn't give a shit about Cuba, that embargo may as well be lifted because who the hell even cares about it anyway? There aren't any rival great powers about trying to use it as leverage against the US now, so what's the point in Cold War-era relations? Better to make nice and bring it into the fold, at least that way Americans can enjoy the lovely scenery, culture and heritage of Cuba, as the rest of the world has been doing for years. Cuba would benefit too, economically speaking, and maybe all those buildings that just collapse because nobody has any money for upkeep will stop collapsing and be upkept!

 

So Jesus is against people using reason and remembering the dignity of every human being. Got it.

Living back in antiquity, if he lived at all, he probably wouldn't have had much use for reason as we understand it. Even his idea of dignity may have been a little alien to us, if we had any first-hand quotes that hadn't been run through two millennia of agenda-ridden filtration.

[Tornado]

No one should give a shit about Cuba, and the embargo really might as well be lifted. But it's not going to be an election issue, and I expect everyone running to specifically avoid the topic unless Castro dies between now and then.

 

 

 

Because Florida has an awful lot of the last people who do care about Cuba (and specifically care about Cuba continuing to be deliberately fucked over; be them Batista descendents, people who lived through the missile crisis and even refugees and political prisoners who suffered under Castro), and no candidate will want to make waves in such a key state with such abnormally high fringe group concentration. Hilary might depending on how much she wants to ride on Obama's policy change which depends on the prevailing popular opinion towards it when elections actually come up, but I'd expect her to shy away from that when she'll be fighting enough scandals and bad publicity anyway.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

If we shouldn't give a shit about Cuba, that embargo may as well be lifted because who the hell even cares about it anyway? There aren't any rival great powers about trying to use it as leverage against the US now, so what's the point in Cold War-era relations?

Well there's the fact that we still have a population who's mentality is still stuck in the Cold War and electing people to champion that mentality, so it really seems to be politics for the sake of ideologies again among other things. Can't seem to let go how different things are, can they?

 

Best we can do is try to keep them at bay and wait for these nuisances to die so we can move on. I swear, it's like the shadows of the Cold War are just trying to screw us over anyway it can.

[Tani Coyote]

As I recall Cuba is still used as something of a leverage point, though not quite as much as it was in the 60s. Russia likes to get buddy buddy with the socialist countries like Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela as memory serves, though it's less because they're socialist and more because they all have a common interest in opposing American dominance (especially since Putin's approval ratings ride on him fighting the good fight against the USA as if Russia was still the USSR; it'll be a fine day if another arms race develops and Russia quickly sees that maybe this isn't such a good idea).

But since it's not anywhere near as divisive or as intense as the Cold War, it probably wouldn't take too much to make Cuba another China. Score some deals, admit we screwed up in backing Batista, and get all those goods flowing between us.

America used to be pretty big on the idea that expanding trade was the ultimate way to preserve peace, not opening bases in other countries, not deposing regimes, not engaging in arms races. We should try and return to those days.

"But expanding trade didn't stop World War I!"

Bzzt. Those countries (with Britain slowly moving past this; it wasn't enough, though, as one of FDR's motives for destroying the British Empire was to open it up to American businesses) were all fetishizing protectionism; that's why they all wanted colonies, so they could monopolize supply and demand. There were clear economic and military rivalries forming the background of the Great War, and no amount of trade will prevent hostilities if you view the other side as an enemy.

[Patticus]

There was once a push to make Cuba another US state. While I no longer see that as possible, the US might send its intelligence agencies down there to stir the pot enough to make the country want to join Puerto Rico in that precarious grey area between general ally fully fledged state with representation. The baseball leagues would love that state of affairs.

[Tani Coyote]

Any sort of close political association is probably going to need to wait another several decades. It would preferably be grassroots as well, lest we end up with Castro Mk. II.

Most political unifications of the prior century have been short-lived unless it was a group of people who were united to begin with. The trend is towards secession and not consolidation as a whole.

I think we should definitely work to secure Cuba as an economic and political ally if nothing else.

Sadly trying to treat states like Iran and Cuba as anything but Satan incarnate doesn't go over well with the conservative masses.

Don't get me wrong. Those states do a lot of despicable things (especially Iran), but not only are we not saints ourselves (we might not execute gays or imprison political opponents, but the struggle on issues like sex and race - never mind wealth - can't be completely written off), but it is what it is.

The real way to spread democracy isn't to isolate states, or pass sanctions, or invade them (lol, can't imagine what could go wrong with this one). It's the opposite. Flood them with so much money that a newly-created middle class end up asserting themselves and breaking down the monopoly on power. The West was no different from any of these countries until a variety of factors led to a burgeoning middle class that was able to take power away from royalty and aristocrats.

Same goes for North Korea. We've convinced ourselves the key to removing their threat is to back them into a corner. If you know how most venomous spiders are, you understand why this is an idiotic idea. What we need to do is poke more and more holes in their monopoly on information and create opportunities for their people.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Uh, North Korea seems to be an outlier if you ask me. Doesn't seem like poking holes in their grip on information and attempting to create opportunities for their people would work well when its elites want to live their gangster lifestyle, nevermind how brainwashed their population is toward worshipping their Great Leader no matter what happens. Any attempt at doing so would likely be pointless if you ask me, since they'll just be blocked off as "Evil Americans" again.

 

Then again, I'm the one who thinks that conflict with them is just inevitable, if not necessary to get them to stop their bullshit. They're constantly using their nuclear arsenal to scare us into giving them food aid that they desperately need, so if you ask me I think we should just stop supporting them and let the damn DPRK collapse on itself and move in to rebuild it. Expensive as hell, yes, but it'll likely lesson tension in East Asia between Korea, China, and the US and while I seriously doubt the US would remove its bases it would allow South Korea military to be more independent, flexible and strong on its own (though not saying much given China would be next to them).

 

Plus China wouldn't have to worry about that leech of a country anyway. And if Japan were to help get involved in rebuilding the collapsed North Korea, it could allow better relations between the two countries...although that might not say much if they still deny their war crimes in WWII.

 

...oh shit. I'm rambling...

 

At any rate, I might just be coming off as too hopeful about that tho. China might still be worried if the new Korea is pro-US, and the DPRK would likely instigate a war before they collapse as a result, which makes it harder for the South to consider just leaving them to wither. Plus this is just my perspective of it, so it would likely be unrealistic for other reasons I'm not even aware off. Point is, I don't see anything in the US dealing with North Korea would be comparable to dealing with Cuba and Iran. The only way I see us dealing with the DPRK is through force, 'cause diplomacy and undermining them sure as hell ain't exactly working when we've been doing it for how long again to no avail? At least we've had progress with Iran.

[Patticus]

The New Mafia Boss: NRA Dictates Gun Violence Research

No amount of money can buy a member of Congress, but if you are a bully with deep pockets, you can rent one.

 

In a move reminiscent of “The Godfather”, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has effectively shut down any research funding on gun violence by both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In the early 1990’s, funding was provided by the CDC for a gun violence study. Dr. Fred Rivara, a member of the team which conducted the study, stated,

 

The research indicated that having a gun in the home correlates to a three-fold increased risk of homicide. The results of the study were published in a series of articles which appeared in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. The NRA sprang into action; they essentially leased Senate votes.

 

Rivara asserts that ten pro-gun senators approached Arlen Specter, at the time a Pennsylvania senator and chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee. Rivara states,

 

Not satisfied with extortion, the thugs of the NRA contacted the National Institutes of Health, requesting that the Office of Scientific Integrity review the study. The NIH found no basis for this, and the CDC backed the research.

 

The mafia techniques of the NRA succeeded, however, in effectively cutting off research funding for gun violence studies. Congressmen, fearing for their positions, are hesitant to enter a brawl with the powerful NRA. Important research has been stifled, allowing the propaganda machine of the NRA to crank out dubious data regarding homicide and suicide rates in households where guns are present. Children are dying while the NRA extorts our government.

 

In the days of Elliot Ness, a special FBI unit dubbed “The Untouchables” made major headway against organized crime. It seems that today, the roles are reversed.

 

The NRA is now “untouchable”.

[Tani Coyote]

The data regarding guns is a Laffer curve. To a point, more guns equates to more violence, but after that point, you start to see a decrease. Not strange at all - you'll behave if you know there's a good chance the guy you want to mug is going to pull one on you.

However, we also can deduce there's something very wrong with American society:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

As we can see, a lot of developed nations that are pretty safe - Switzerland, France, Norway - also have high amounts of guns per capita. Now, this is not an indication of gun owners, just the number of guns, but it would seem to indicate that the United States' gun crime issues go beyond "more guns = more violence." Given our welfare system is a bit lacking, this isn't surprising.

Regarding suicides... unfortunate, but it's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves, only from each other.

Fortunately, the extension of that is universal healthcare covering psychiatry, which would be beneficial to curbing suicides as well as mass shootings. While there is no single shooter profile, there are enough examples of emotional/mental issues in a shooter to indicate it would pay dividends.

[Patticus]

Switzerland has incredibly harsh firearms laws, actually, in that most ammunition has been banned and confiscated - more than 90%, I believe. This state of affairs has been in place since 2007. It isn't certain yet how this has affected the national gun crime rate.

 

Switzerland has the advantage in that mandatory militia service for all citizens as well, if I recall correctly. Everybody knows how to use and maintain them, there is a great deal more discipline and probably a better attitude than the US has.

 

 

Anyway, right now there's a Laffer curve, but you have to acknowledge that precious little research has been carried out in the US on the matter, and with the US being a far outlier among developed nations in regards to its gun crime rates, more research is absolutely vital to being able to construct a targeted approach to killing off that crime. Yes, some of us know that economic woes drive most crime, homelessness, the war on drugs, mandatory minimums etc, but that says nothing of firearms suicide rates or intentional killings with roots outside of the economic spectrum - anger management etc. We would all benefit from the GOP and its defectors among the Democrats not doing the wrong thing by silencing important research for the sake of winning elections.

 

American politicians are probably alone in believing that winning elections is far more important than doing right by the country. Sometimes doing the right thing is political suicide, as it was for the party in Australia which enacted strict gun controls in the mid-1990s. That suicidal action can do tremendous good, however, as we can see in Australia going from being as bad as America for gun crime, to being a lot better for it. Yeah, gun control can actually help, and must be part of any solution proposed.

[Candescence]

American politicians are probably alone in believing that winning elections is far more important than doing right by the country. Sometimes doing the right thing is political suicide, as it was for the party in Australia which enacted strict gun controls in the mid-1990s. That suicidal action can do tremendous good, however, as we can see in Australia going from being as bad as America for gun crime, to being a lot better for it. Yeah, gun control can actually help, and must be part of any solution proposed.

 

Oh, believe me, the Howard government didn't really cop much flak from anyone other than shooters for the post-Port Arthur legislation.

[Oscillo]

American politicians are probably alone in believing that winning elections is far more important than doing right by the country.

 

Not necessarily. I can't comment for everywhere, but while there have been some recent UK politicians that seem not to believe this, right now the main 2 parties if no-one else are firmly after election results currently.

[Tani Coyote]

Guns are so woven into American culture we probably can never curb them the same way a lot of European states have.

Similar to drugs, we need to recognize this cultural pattern and formulate policy around it. Mandatory firearm safety (the fact TEENS are mentioned as committing suicide with firearms most can't legally own indicates there's something very wrong here) training, better background checks, and access to healthcare would work wonders.

For many, guns are just an adult form of Barbie dolls. The NRA needs to recognize they are weapons at the end of the day, though, and they do need to at least be regulated.

Can you imagine pharmaceutical companies saying that drugs shouldn't be regulated or require safety labels?

Very few people call for an outright gun ban. Most just want it so nobody who's either stupid or malicious can acquire one.

No solution's perfect, though. We have to accept the inevitability of some gun violence at this point, though we can at least try to cut down on accidental shootings, suicides, and make sure anyone who harbors aggression gets the counseling they need.