The General American Politics Thread

[Tani Coyote]

The move to legalize drugs will need to come from us.

 

I imagine a Mexican leader would sooner be assassinated than succeed in that endeavor, since it's a direct threat to cartel revenues unless the cartels get to remain the main suppliers.

 

I think this is another area where pride will be a problem. I don't think the Mexican government would legalize drugs on its own; it has invested so much in the War it started that no politician wants to admit defeat in it. Think Vietnam and how we had to "retreat with honor" to get it wrapped up. Though I think Philip Caputo said it all on continuing wars in his book Rumor of War. Coming back from Vietnam, he addressed the argument you can't end a war defeated without making all those who died fighting it die in vain. His counter was that such proponents of conflict should be immediately sent to the front to continue it themselves.

 

Politics is all about compromise. Just as we'll work with hardly-progressive regimes like Cuba and Iran to secure our interests and possibly improve the overall situation there (economic development will curb radicalism far more than any amount of sanctions and drone strikes), chances are high that there's going to need to be cooperation with or concessions to the cartels. In Afghanistan we balked at the idea of working with the Taliban when the idea came up, but politics makes strange bedfellows. You need to recognize power brokers and incorporate them into your political program if you want success.

 

It's like the spreading democracy nonsense. Even if we did indeed aim to spread democracy to every corner of the globe, it rests on the faulty assumption that every country is prepared for it. Look what happened without Tito, Saddam, Gadhaffi, etc. Their countries fell apart. Some countries objectively need strongmen until they develop to a point democracy can be functional. Tragic, but the data simply does not lie. Nearly every country on Earth is a democracy, actually. And a lot of them have elected heads of state who have served for one, two or three decades. I'd wager it's not their popularity, just look at how much crap an American President has to deal with in midterms; every democratic leader is inevitably thrown out of power for reasons beyond their control.

[Tornado]

The United States would have to lead basically any initiative to force Mexico to stop being so... Mexico-like, and I don't think there is any chance of that happening in the near future. First of all, the US would have to give a shit collectively, and I'm not entirely sure that even the illegal immigrants coming here to support their families in Mexico actually care about Mexico itself; but more importantly it would have to make a massive expenditure of time, money and resources (one that would almost certainly be heavily criticized internationally) to do something that has little perceived value for the US to undertake but plenty to lose from doing.

 

 

Why should the US prepare to lose their practically infinite cheap labor source under NAFTA when its easier to just let the country rot and reap the benefits? Why should the US purposely damage the fragile ecosystem that illegal immigrants have built for some businesses (especially agricultural) when it's easier to just do limp-wristed and token efforts towards deporting people every once in a while instead and a lot less damaging? Why should the US dump a ton of money and political capital into Mexico when it would be far more useful from a voter popularity standpoint to spend it domestically? You'll even get the fringe (but as Trump has shown, only fringe when it comes to actually expressing them) notions, like why not just cooperate with Mexico to kill the drug cartels like America did in the 1980s with Colombia?

Any politician who proposes such a push is going to have to answer those questions, but I don't think any politician in ~2015 would be able to answer those questions. No Republican would even even bring up the topic in the first place, and I don't think there is currently a Democrat with enough clout to even propose it. Hilary in 2008, maybe.

[Tani Coyote]

Barring jobs that actually need to be done locally, is Mexican labor even that valuable? I see a lot more Made in China than Hecho en Mexico.
 

Nonetheless I don't dispute the political infeasibility, so much as I was floating what should be done, even if it won't be.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/business/a-company-copes-with-backlash-against-the-raise-that-roared.html?_r=1

 

In other news, that CEO who was seen as a shining example of a modern welfare capitalist by raising his workers' wages to 70,000 is now on the verge of bankruptcy.

 

He's also turning out to be an asshole. The moment you question the sustainability of the approach, he calls you selfish and arrogant. No, dipshit, the fact is money doesn't grow on trees and there will NEVER be true economic equality even in a socialist society. Why? Because different goods have different expenses and techniques associated with them. Equality is inherently a falsehood because we all have inherently unequal situations.

 

And that's why a lot of his employees are complaining about the raise or leaving, because they don't like being paid the same amount as someone who isn't as productive or long-serving.

 

I will also say as an aside, lol to Rush Limbaugh calling this guy a "socialist." It really shows how degraded that term has become when a CEO of a PRIVATE COMPANY is now a socialist. Do you even know what that term means you moron?

 

Probably not, given he's the guy who says that history needs to be taught the "right way" of good guys and bad guys, noble pioneers settling unsettled land, American soldiers staving off savages, etc.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie

[Tornado]

Which beggars belief, considering the size of the company. Does it use loopholes and tax havens to reduce its supposed size?

McDonald's doesn't have to use tax loopholes or offshore havens to avoid taking financial responsibility for a privately own restaurant that happens to have McDonald's written on the roof. They only directly own and operate 15% of the ones in the country, so the billions in revenue and the millions their upper level corporate officers make only applies to this stores. All of the other ones are franchised and payroll and hiring is managed no different for any other small business.

Barring jobs that actually need to be done locally, is Mexican labor even that valuable? I see a lot more Made in China than Hecho en Mexico

 

Cars. Mexico has been the go to place for the automotive industry to build US market cars that have margins too thin to build in America. 

 

[Tani Coyote]

http://filmingcops.com/its-disgraceful-police-outraged-at-new-superman-comic-book/

 

Long story short, the new Superman comics have a weakened Superman standing between a crowd of police in riot gear and a group of peaceful citizens.

 

Police are saying comics shouldn't address social issues and should focus on entertainment.

 

Way I see it, they're just mad that they're getting called out on more-than-sparse incidents of brutality. The cops against this come off like the childish American conservative who whines about how all these other countries "hate America." As if we're innocent and have done nothing that might make people harbor negativity towards us.

 

I like how whenever gay rights, police brutality, etc. are addressed it's always an "agenda" of some sort. There's never an acknowledgment that maybe the problem is real.

 

Plus their complaints are ill-founded. They think this paints cops in a bad light... but some of the cops in the story actually object to the brutality. What's more, the incident happens because one cop accidentally fires the tear gas, rather than doing it purposely. While there's plenty of commentary on police brutality, I'm not seeing the "all cops are evil!" angle being played here.

 

This comic doesn't make me distrust the police. The actual police's reaction to it makes me distrust the police.

[Patticus]

It's a comic book, not a vapid propaganda leaflet. If the police is railing against it, then they obviously haven't read through it, and you know what? Comic books, like every other medium, have every right to be entertaining while touching upon emotive social issues. Who are they to dictate what comics can and cannot do?

[Tani Coyote]

I think it's telling that any time a social issue is raised in entertainment, it's an "agenda," rather than a representation of something in society.

 

It's like the lesbian couple in the final episode of... Good Luck Charlie, I think it was? Tons of people were crying it was brainwashing, politics, etc. when in reality homosexual families are increasingly woven into our society. It's even played for laughs as I recall, with characters previously discussing whether it would be a mom or dad would show up to drop a kid off... and it's two moms. This isn't an in your face example of homosexuality, but a subtle showcasing of a perfectly average couple that just happens to be gay.

 

I can only imagine the cries that interracial couples are pushing an agenda or politics. Oh wait, that doesn't happen, because they're commonplace now.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

It's kinda funny and really telling how they're saying comics shouldn't tackle social issues when they, and Superman in particular, have been doing that since the Cold War, if not all the way back to World War Ii.

Edited August 3, 2015 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Tani Coyote]

The cringeworthy 9/11 comic aside, I must concur.

 

What the police really mean is "I don't want social issues that don't feed my confirmation bias."

 

It's the same ruckus people make over gay characters in the media. Notice how every gay character is a "fad" or "part of an agenda." It can't possibly be that gay people have been underrepresented in the press due to bias, and they're only now getting an accurate depiction.

 

In short, privileged people always whine when their privilege is rightfully reduced in the media.

[Patticus]

With the circus of mind boggling insanity that is the GOP's presidential nominee debates just starting, the Democratic debates' dates have been announced:

• October 13, CNN, Nevada
• November 14, CBS/KCCI/Des Moines Register, Des Moines, IA
• December 19, ABC/WMUR, Manchester, NH
• January 17, NBC/Congressional Black Caucus Institute, Charleston, SC
• February or March, Univision/Washington Post, Miami, FL
• February or March, PBS, Wisconsin

https://medium.com/@DWStweets/announcing-the-democratic-debate-schedule-d8e284513221

I look forward to Clinton either adopting Sanders' stances wholesale to try to win back voters, or her presidential dream's uncomfortable, awkward demise.

[Tornado]

Hilary is going to have to do something, for sure. It's kind of amazing that the GOP has been completely ignoring how much Sanders is going at her, since all of these skeletons falling out of her closet from the Obama administration would ordinarily be something they run nonstop on television for the next 14 months. Trump's absolute over the top insanity has really gotten them chasing their tails.

 

 

 

 

Tonight's debate might be the TV event of the season.

[Patticus]

Whenever I actually sit down and watch these people talk, I get angry. I mean, I become incensed, shouting at the TV.

I still want to watch this event, though, but I really just want to avoid an unnecessary fit of rage and bury myself in Civ V, listening to another episode of Hardcore History. Dan Carlin soothes the nerves.

Edit: Hmm, seems that it's only airing on Fox, and the live stream is locked up unless you have a Fox cable account. Saved from the idiots!

Edited August 7, 2015 by Patticus

[PSI Wind]

Whenever I actually sit down and watch these people talk, I get angry. I mean, I become incensed, shouting at the TV.

I still want to watch this event, though, but I really just want to avoid an unnecessary fit of rage and bury myself in Civ V, listening to another episode of Hardcore History. Dan Carlin soothes the nerves.

Edit: Hmm, seems that it's only airing on Fox, and the live stream is locked up unless you have a Fox cable account. Saved from the idiots!

holy shit, really? That's actually really damn alarming when a news station, especially Fox, gets a monopoly on a televised debate that the American people have a right to see on any news channel.

[-Robin-]

"The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things" - Mike Huckabee

 

Jesus.

 

 

Well, Kasich and Rubio "won" big, Paul deeeefinitely lost, Bush looked pretty tepid, Christie got a few strong points in, and everyone else was just kinda there. When's the next debate?

[Patticus]

holy shit, really? That's actually really damn alarming when a news station, especially Fox, gets a monopoly on a televised debate that the American people have a right to see on any news channel.

I ended up watching it online via the Sky News stream (thanks Britain), but Fox's lawyers had it taken down a few minutes before the debate closed.

The last thing I saw was Ben Carson demonstrating his inability to understand that America is no longer at war with Germany, and that military technologies (ships and planes) are far, far more expensive than they were in 1917 and 1940; that today's astronomical costs mean basic ship/plane numbers will never be what they once were. Drones mitigate that drop in numbers, as do other force multipliers like intelligent ordnance, and no power on earth can effectively stand up to America's naval and air superiority anyway, so Carson is just an idiot spouting nonsense.

Anyone else notice the way the Fox News hosts addressed Trump? They were attacking him all night.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Patticus

[Tornado]

holy shit, really? That's actually really damn alarming when a news station, especially Fox, gets a monopoly on a televised debate that the American people have a right to see on any news channel.

Fox was the one who had exclusive access to the debate because Fox was the one who was hosting the debate. CNN gets the next one next month.

[Patticus]

It still seems wrong that only paid up viewers of the host network can watch the debate. It should at least be available in a free capacity online, with a re-run on other networks over the weekend.

[Tornado]

There's really no point though. This was by a humongous margin the most watched televised debate ever. It was the single highest rated cable program ever (sports excluded). Almost ten times as many people watched this one live as did the equivalent ones in 2007 and 2011. And the entire day was loaded with news excerpts, quotes and breakdowns of the event. No one is being kept from knowing anything that happened last night, and the only thing that they missed was the experience of watching a Legitimate Presidential Candidate™ literally call someone a fat disgusting pig on national television.

[Patticus]

I just think that it's in the public interest to make the debates as widely accessible as possible, given that they are all about showing the electorate all of the candidates for the soon to be open Leader Of The Free World position. By paywalling and limiting access, all most people who don't watch will know are the choicest soundbites and arguments over who "won" (Kasich seemed the most sensible to me).

Also, the only reason why the debate was so heavily watched was Trump. As long as he's in the debates, they'll all get high numbers watching.

 

I really, really hope that Trump ends up running as an independent, screwing the party over in the process. Also, allegedly it was Bill Clinton who encouraged Trump to run for president in the first place. Great work Bill!

Edited August 8, 2015 by Patticus

[Tani Coyote]

I'd say that if he had any political savvy he'd know the FPTP system is rigged against third parties, at least here.

 

But I don't know if he has any savvy. At the same time, with how much damage this has caused his brand, I can't help but imagine he must be actually interested in the office.

 

If he's wise he'll look at the cases of Teddy and Perot and see how futile a third party bid is.

[Patticus]

I dunno, he could completely change the game and go third party jointly with Sanders. I mean, he won't, but it'd be the ballsiest political gamble of the century thus far by a long way.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Patticus

[Tani Coyote]

Even with all his wealth, Perot wasn't able to win a bid because the two parties went to work on the mantra that voting for Perot was voting for the other party's victory.

 

Which isn't entirely inaccurate since unless a ton of people go third party, all that results from a third party vote is a split base. It'd be really nice if we had instant runoff voting for the Presidency.

[Patticus]

I really just want to see what would happen if both Trump and Sanders went third party, splitting both the conservative and the progressive voting blocs up. The debates, hell election night proper would be a real nail biter! Almost like a political game of Russian Roulette.

Bernie Sanders news, because we don't hear about him nearly as much as perhaps we should.

Black Lives Matter protesters shut down Bernie Sanders speech

Black Lives Matter interrupted the planned speech for Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders at Westlake Park on Saturday afternoon. Sanders left without delivering his speech. Later, he spoke to 12,000 people gathered at the University of Washington.

A Seattle speech by Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was pre-empted in a chaotic confrontation Saturday afternoon with a handful of Black Lives Matter protesters, who took the stage and refused to let him speak.

The Vermont senator, who has drawn huge crowds around the country, was to be the star attraction and final speaker for an hours-long rally to celebrate the 80th birthday of Social Security, as well as Medicare and other anti-poverty programs.

But protesters were determined to turn attention instead to Sunday’s anniversary of the shooting by a white police officer of Michael Brown, an unarmed black man in Ferguson, Mo.

Sanders was just starting to address the crowd, thanking Seattle for being “one of the most progressive cities in the United States of America.”

That’s as far as he got before two women walked onstage and grabbed the microphone.

“If you do not listen … your event will be shut down,” one of the protesters told organizers, who at first argued they could speak after Sanders. After a back and forth with the screaming protesters, organizers relented and said the demonstrators could go first.

Some in the largely white audience booed and chanted for protesters to let the senator talk. A few yelled for police to make arrests.

Marissa Johnson, one of the protesters, shot back, “I was going to tell Bernie how racist this city is, filled with its progressives, but you did it for me,” accusing the audience of “white supremacist liberalism.” She cited Seattle’s own police problems, including an ongoing Justice Department consent decree over use of force.

The activists demanded 4 ½ minutes of silence in memory of Brown, to symbolize the 4½ hours his body lay on a Ferguson street. While rally organizers stood and raised their hands in support, some in the crowd yelled profanities.

After the few minutes of silence, the protesters said they wanted to hold Sanders accountable for failing to address their concerns when he was similarly interrupted at a town hall for liberal activists in Phoenix last month. Johnson beckoned Sanders to stand closer as she spoke — he refused.

The Westlake protesters would not let Sanders take the microphone, prompting rally organizer Robby Stern to say the event was over because the demonstrators were determined to stop it.

Sanders left the stage and walked through the crowd, greeting supporters, before leaving in a white Jeep for a fundraiser at the Comet Tavern on Capitol Hill and a 7 p.m. campaign rally at the Alaska Airlines Arena at the Hec Edmundson Pavilion at the University of Washington.

At the Comet, reporters were barred, but Sanders could be heard by people gathered outside.

“When we stand together, when black and white stand together, when gay and straight stand together, when women and men stand together,” Sanders told the cheering crowd. “When we stand together, there is nothing, nothing, that we cannot accomplish.”

At the UW event, 12,000 supporters flooded the arena and 3,000 more were in the overflow crowd outside.

In a written statement addressing the Westlake protest, Sanders said he was “disappointed that two people disrupted a rally attended by thousands … I was especially disappointed because on criminal-justice reform and the need to fight racism there is no other candidate for president who will fight harder than me.”

In a news release posted on social media, local Black Lives Matter activists said they were holding Sanders and other white progressives accountable for failing to support their movement.

Citing the anniversary of Brown’s death, they said, “We honor black lives by doing the unthinkable, the unapologetic, and the unrespectable.”

Activists with the movement have shut down Seattle streets and local events before, arguing such direct action is needed to shake people out of complacency over the deaths of black men and women at the hands of police. In December, they disrupted a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony at Westlake.

Some Sanders supporters were chagrined at the way his speech was cut off and argued the protesters hurt their own cause.

“Why would they pick Bernie Sanders to do this to? He has stuck up for civil rights,” said Diane Jerich-Domin, of Port Ludlow, Jefferson County, who added that she’d attended Black Lives Matter protests after Ferguson.

A self-proclaimed democratic socialist, the independent senator had been expecting a warm welcome in Seattle, as he’s been seen by progressives as an alternative to presumed Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

A few thousand had gathered at Westlake for the 1 p.m. event, which featured hours of speeches from local activists and politicians in favor of protecting and expanding Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs that have kept millions out of poverty.

Before the ending disruption, the event had a celebratory air, with musical acts and a crowd united in chanting to “Scrap the Cap” — referring to a proposal to tax rich people on all their earnings instead of just the first $118,500, in order to protect and expand Social Security.

A group of Seattle police on bike and foot monitored the event, but no arrests were made. Detective Patrick Michaud said rally organizers “asked us not to move up and make any arrests.”

Stern, the longtime local labor activist who emceed the rally, said while it was “a very disappointing ending, the program itself was fantastic” and got out the message of the importance of preserving and expanding Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/black-lives-matter-protesters-shut-down-bernie-sanders-rally/?utm_content=buffer2368e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=owned_buffer

It's sad that a man who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who has an unquestionable record on civil rights, and who to my mind represents by far the greatest hope for the improvement of impoverished lives nationwide (many of which are African American lives), should be kicked off stage by the very people he's trying to help. Oh, and this was his response:

 "Black lives, of course, matter. I spent 50 years of my life fighting for civil rights and for dignity," he said. "But if you don't want me to be here, that's OK. I don't want to outscream people."

Now that there is a politician with class.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Patticus

[Tornado]

This is ironically the exact kind of grandstanding that causes certain, shall we say opposite groups of people to throw in with The Donald out of spite. Good for Sanders, though. This has drawn him a lot more attention than it would have had the event gone over without a hitch.

[Tani Coyote]

So Black Lives Matter just alienated a lot of people, but on the flipside, Sanders probably gained a lot of kudos for keeping his cool in the face of it.

 

People like Trump lose their cool when faced with criticism, so this will probably help Sanders considerably, never mind the media attention.

 

Kind of disappointed in BLM as a whole though. I understand how much they care for their cause, but disrupting other events like this isn't going to do them any good. It's not like it was a Klan rally or something. No matter how serious their grievances are, this is just going to convince even more people on the fence to not be supportive.

 

Lol though. Anybody who thinks this was a stupid movie is a "white supremacist progressive." Okay then.

 

What a bunch of idiots.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie