The General American Politics Thread

[Tani Coyote]

Thinking on it, has any election irritated as many voters as this one? A lot of Republicans don't want Trump, and a lot of Democrats don't want Clinton. It literally is choosing between too garbage candidates for different reasons.

Never mind, Trump's success might be because the superdelegates on the GOP side are minimal. It's not entirely unfair to credit Clinton's success on the behavior of the superdelegates in making her seem unstoppable from the start. What a hilarious irony that the Southern Party is more democratic than its opponent. It appears that in wake of the realignment, the Democrats (the party of the white primary, literacy test, so on and so forth) decided diluting democracy was still good policy.

Anyway, on that note. Could this finally be what we need to get instant runoff voting going in this country? It's a fantastic idea - you can put whoever you want as your first pick, and if they don't win, your vote goes to your second pick, then your third, and so on until a single candidate has the majority of votes. It ensures whoever wins has the broadest support possible.

http://www.fairvote.org/pass_fair_rep_act

The best part is, the idea has been floated in Congress before, but didn't get very far (the establishment obviously hates the idea). But maybe this election is precisely what we need to get broad bipartisan support from the general public for such a measure. Republicans wouldn't have to unite behind Trump, nor would Democrats behind Clinton, in an IRV system.

And here's the REAL good part: Sanders is a supporter of IRV. He actually backed it in Vermont back in 2008 only for the Governor (a Republican, naturally) to veto the bill and kill it.

If Sanders can't kill the superdelegate system, maybe he should make an unholy alliance with the GOP establishment to get the idea out the door. It would avoid anymore Clintons or Trumps.

On the other hand, it also gives third parties extra weight, so I can see why the GOP leaders might be a little wary. But on the other hand, it's apparent that a virtual third Party - whether Trump, the Tea Party, etc. - can already take control of the GOP from within, so maybe it's not such a bad idea. The GOP and the Democrats have the brand recognition to keep real power.

[Hyp3hat]

1 hour ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Thinking on it, has any election irritated as many voters as this one? A lot of Republicans don't want Trump, and a lot of Democrats don't want Clinton. It literally is choosing between too garbage candidates for different reasons.

This is compounded by the fact that it seems to have gone on forever, thanks mostly to the Republican clown car. I feel like I've been reading about Trump's election chances for aeons, and we're still months away from it.

[Dr. Mechano]

Well, Hillary Clinton has mathematically secured the Democratic nomination.

Speaking as a longtime Bernie Sanders supporter, I'm with her. First choice or not, I still agree with many of her positions (quite a few of which she shares with Sanders), and will be voting for her in November. My two primary reasons are that it will determine the next Supreme Court Justice, and - of course - that I can't stand by and let Trump win.

I hope my fellow Bernie supporters do the same. Even if Clinton isn't who we'd prefer, it's time to unite and defeat Trump. That's what's at stake right now.

[Tani Coyote]

It'll be a much easier pill to swallow if she makes some serious concessions on the platform, and keeps those promises once in office. Once in office, the specter of Trump is no longer there, so I'd be happy if Bernie would burn the whole Party down if she doesn't keep what she promised him in the 2016 election.

It'll be a tough sell, though. 6 Clinton, 5 Sanders, and 4 DNC people decide the platform. It'll be very easy for the DNC people to claim "you're in the minority lol" even though they have no place at that table. It should be entirely Clinton and Sanders negotiating the platform.

[Solkia]

16 hours ago, Dr. Mechano said:

Well, Hillary Clinton has mathematically secured the Democratic nomination.

Speaking as a longtime Bernie Sanders supporter, I'm with her. First choice or not, I still agree with many of her positions (quite a few of which she shares with Sanders), and will be voting for her in November. My two primary reasons are that it will determine the next Supreme Court Justice, and - of course - that I can't stand by and let Donald "I beat China all the time" Trump win.

I hope my fellow Bernie supporters do the same. Even if Clinton isn't who we'd prefer, it's time to unite and defeat Donald "Did you notice that baby was crying through half of the speech and I didn’t get angry?" Trump. That's what's at stake right now.

For me it comes down to even if I don't remotely trust Hillary, I dislike the idea of giving a toddler with a hair piece nuclear launch codes even more.

I don't think Trump even has his administration figured out yet, he's basically doing this just for the sake of doing it.

[Patticus]

Lots of news today!

Obama endorses Clinton:

Apparently, he only waited so long because he was worried about a Sanders backlash, but it was always obvious that she'd get his nomination, and now here we are. Also endorsing Clinton today was Elizabeth Warren, long seen as a politician in the Sanders mold (sincere and genuinely in it to help people) much more comfortably ensconced within the Democratic party. I can see Clinton choosing her as a running mate, and she evidently feels ready for the position, too, though I think she'd be much more effective remaining in the senate with Sanders.

Bernie will work with Clinton to defeat Trump:

Presumably, this means that he feels confident that he'll get sufficient concessions from the DNC and the Clinton camp regarding the policies and platform the party will take up at the convention. He might not have the delegates to challenge Hillary for the nomination, but he does have more than enough to lay down a Minority Report and do things that way if necessary.

Also in the news, in the wake of the Obama endorsement...

Source.

Wow!

There was more from Warren on Trump's war on the American judiciary and Judge Curiel, too:

Wow, she should be president!

[Tani Coyote]

Today's been quite the rough patch for me.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-voting-problems-20160607-snap-htmlstory.html

First, reports of irregularities in California. What a surprise when so many anticipated Sanders would take it (never mind the absolute nonsense the superdelegates pulled the day before).

And then, Google misusing their clout in everyday life to make Hillary look like the best candidate.

Can folks see why I'm increasingly not interested in buying into this "lesser evil" mentality? I'm starting to think a Trump Presidency would be the best thing to happen to this country, giving the Democratic Party the slap in the face it needs. Trump's a moron and utterly unqualified in every manner, but he's the outsider candidate (albeit not a perfect outsider, given his vested interest in capitalism) who managed to win against all odds, and the damage he does could be harnessed for better long-term purposes. His victory could absolutely destroy both the GOP's credibility AND teach the DNC some humility.

If Bernie works with Clinton, I hope he does so with an exit plan in mind. The moment she goes back on her word, he needs to douse party unity in kerosene and send the whole thing burning down. Should she not win the election, he needs to use it as all the evidence we need that America needs someone different, not another status quo supporter.

If party unity is just going to give us more corruption, more resistance to change, more closed circles of power, then screw party unity. I'd be more than willing to let the GOP have a term to run this place off a cliff if it made the Democratic leadership remember their place.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

While at the same time, a Trump presidency would severely damage the US in a lot of ways that would take who knows how long to rebuild even if the DNC took power after him.

Part of the "lesser evil" mentality is to avoid far worse outcomes that would be difficult to recover from, because who's to say we could recover if things blow up disastrously? For all anyone knows, if you open that door, you won't get a chance to turn back and open the other one to make things right.

[Dizcrybe]

Plus, if you don't have fair skin, you'd be absolutely boned under a Trump presidency.

[Nepenthe]

This short-sighted, "burn it all down" approach is exactly what I feared from Bernie people throughout his meltdown, people who are more concerned with throwing the system to the wolves because it's finally not working for white people in the manner they'd want than for actual reasonable pragmatism in the march towards social and economic equity. You didn't get your absolute perfect candidate? Too bad. Welcome to America as it's been for the last 200-odd years, particularly for minorities. 

I don't want a racist conservative loon with the ability to choose the next Supreme Court nominee (who would also probably be a conservative loon) being anywhere near the White House. I don't care how much Hillary supposedly sucks, because even if you ignored her platform positions (which are like 90% in line with Bernie's anyway), she at least has the decency as a human being not to deliberately use language and policy proposals that blatantly undermine the integrity and dignity of those born non-white while on the campaign trail. That is literally the foundation of just being a decent person and Trump can't even get that right. Might as well write in Don Black at this point.

EDIT: Here's a Politico article basically outlining my feelings of the Bernie Bros.' heelturns:

Quote

Minority voters have been watching in horror as millions of Republican voters choose Trump either because of, or despite, his open bigotry. The Sanders supporters who toy with the idea of shunning Clinton in November and allowing Trump to become president to force a revolution that Sanders couldn’t deliver are playing with fire. To minority voters, Trump’s candidacy feels like an existential threat. It’s one thing for Republicans to either ignore or embrace his racism; the party already seems unwilling or incapable of making the kinds of adjustments it must to attract more non-white voters. It’s quite another for white Democrats to not appreciate how liberal minorities feel about the possibility of a Trump presidency and what that would say about the state of racial progress in America. It would be a slap in the face, the latest sign that a kind of white privilege—throwing a temper tantrum because they don’t get their way despite how much it hurts people of color—is deeply rooted within liberal, Democratic ranks as well.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Not a temper tantrum in my case. I've been looking at it historically, and Trump may just be what is needed to put this country back on the road towards social democracy that Nixon drove us off several decades ago. It gives Trump too much credit to assume any damage he will do is irreparable; my personal favorite is the fear of nuclear war, which completely ignores the fact nuclear weapons have a series of checks and balances designed precisely to prevent a crazy President from doing such.

Sure, call me privileged. But I think long-term. A Trump victory undermines both the Democratic political machine as well as the GOP's legitimacy. It kills two birds with one stone, leveling the playing field for a much better Democratic candidate to take power in 2020.

Here's the real dealbreaker for me: the Democratic Party gets to engage in more than its fair share of morally questionable behavior on voting (all while insulting the GOP's own voter suppression tactics), and then expects Bernie supporters to fall in line behind Clinton because she's "not Trump?" Screw that. These superdelegates need four years in the corner to think about what they have done. Clinton and her supporters don't get to hijack a race and expect it to be fine and dandy afterward. It's also rather interesting that Clinton has support from minorities when it appears she engages in the same voter quashing tactics that the GOP does; I think it's quite apparent this is a contest of self-interest by extension.

I am willing to support Clinton IF she makes some big concessions to make up for the load of steaming horsecrap she's served us all; I'm afraid her continued support for loosely-regulated banks and the broken education and healthcare systems we have is a turnoff (and I note these are three major areas she breaks with Sanders). And I am just as willing to support the progressive wing burning the Party to the ground if her arrogant demeanor comes out as usual and makes her think she can ignore those promises once in office.

Back to Trump, though. The amount of times I've heard "x will ruin this country forever" has ruined such comments' legitimacy for me. Trump can only do so much, especially when his own Party is eager to send him packing. Let's remember here: the Senate alone is generally good at putting partisanship aside when it feels there's a pressing need (filling a Supreme Court vacancy is not a pressing need for them). The Senate GOP would more than willing to ignore President Trump's demands if he goes too far. Senators are not a hive mind, unlike most House members.

I normally am an advocate of steady change. But I see an opportunity here for something more drastic to happen. Any problems Trump creates would energize both non-whites and liberal whites to come out in droves in 2020 (never mind 2018) to see him unseated. And the best part is, there'd be no Clinton candidacy to stand in the way of real progress. 2016 served as the year to establish that conservative candidates are not what is needed.

Let's remember here. Note the number of states giving the federal government the finger on marijuana. Trump can only do so much in a system that is governed by checks and balances and federalism. We could certainly panic if this was say, Britain, where this is no separation of powers and no real local power, but we're not Britain.

 

 

[Kevin]

Donald Trump has revoked The Washington Post's credentials because of this article. Of course the Executive Editor made this statement and treating it like a badge of honor.

For someone who is "anti-PC", he sure seemed to get offended easily. Keep in mind the press in general is very buddy-buddy with each other and aren't going to take this lying down.

[shdowhunt60]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-13/saudi-arabia-has-funded-20-hillarys-presidential-campaign-saudi-crown-prince-claims

Saudi Arabia's crown prince claims to have funded %20 of Hillary's campaign.

Man, does this give me some BAD vibes.

[Tani Coyote]

On 6/15/2016 at 3:10 PM, shdowhunt60 said:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-13/saudi-arabia-has-funded-20-hillarys-presidential-campaign-saudi-crown-prince-claims

Saudi Arabia's crown prince claims to have funded %20 of Hillary's campaign.

Man, does this give me some BAD vibes.

This is why I really hate this election. The fact I can't even look at this and automatically disbelieve it.

We are being given the choice between constipation and diarrhea in our candidate choices. I absolutely hate Trump's proposals, and while Hillary may not be as bad on the surface, she has a potent smell of elitism and hostility to democracy and transparency that is an immediate turnoff.

I can't give my support to her, because it sends the message that everything she's done was perfectly fine and dandy.

Yeah, a Trump Presidency will have negative effects on minorities. But a Clinton Presidency says, "by the way, it's perfectly fine to slither you way into the nominee position, because people will vote for you anyway!"

The idea of the lesser evil needs to be staked in the heart, and fast. We need IRV so this nonsense never happens again. It doesn't matter if we're voting for x because they're not y. We may as well be voting for them because they're x, because we can be counted on to fall in line every time without the ability to challenge insiders.

I wish impeachment and recall were easy processes. We could vote Clinton in just to stave off Trump, and just as swiftly throw her and her cronies out. But hey, that would require the system be more open, which would probably have kept Clinton out of her nominee position in the first place.

[Nepenthe]

The lack of palatable choice you're experiencing frustration with is something that has been at the heart of American politics for centuries for minorities, and you're not going to soothe these growing pains by voting for someone you know is going to fuck minorities and judicial decision-making over in the worst ways possible. You do it by advocating for a voting system that doesn't mathematically trends towards two parties while continuing to strategically vote in the meantime. Again, welcome to America.

[Tani Coyote]

7 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

The lack of palatable choice you're experiencing frustration with is something that has been at the heart of American politics for centuries for minorities, and you're not going to soothe these growing pains by voting for someone you know is going to fuck minorities and judicial decision-making over in the worst ways possible. You do it by advocating for a voting system that doesn't mathematically trends towards two parties while continuing to strategically vote in the meantime. Again, welcome to America.

America's best years were under liberal policies, so whatever would catapult liberals to power would be the best from a strictly utilitarian perspective.

A guy like Trump driving the GOP and this nation off a cliff might be just what's needed to do this. Image is everything, though: Herbert Hoover spent a lot of federal money, but his reputation as a free marketeer did its job to sink his re-election chances and give FDR the votes necessary to put us on the path to social democracy.

Though at the same time, maybe the fact Trump was nominated at all will alienate a lot of moderates from the GOP for a while. I know it's creating an impressive rift within the Party ranks and disillusioning the more moderate Republicans. The GOP's bigoted roots have finally come back up from the surface, and the people who supported it for the sake of classical liberalism, national security, etc. are not feeling as comfortable with it as they were before. Just as the New Deal coalition fell apart over the issue of race, it looks like the conservative coalition is also coming apart over it as well. Republicans who aren't principled racists are finding their Party less palatable now that it's being so openly voiced and supported.

I do wish this would drive a lot of people into the Libertarian Party so we could get a genuine three party system (never mind the Libertarian Party isn't quite as horrible as the GOP), but I won't hold my breath.

[Patticus]

On 6/15/2016 at 6:10 PM, shdowhunt60 said:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-13/saudi-arabia-has-funded-20-hillarys-presidential-campaign-saudi-crown-prince-claims

Saudi Arabia's crown prince claims to have funded %20 of Hillary's campaign.

Man, does this give me some BAD vibes.

Because Trump totally doesn't have a long-standing relationship with the House of Saud himself:

Quote

A Saudi prince may have just beaten Donald Trump at a game of Twitter trolling.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal said on Twitter that he’s bailed the billionaire out twice — and suggested the GOP presidential frontrunner might need his help a third time.

The exchange was initiated by Trump, who had re-tweeted a badly Photoshopped image showing the prince with Fox News host Megyn Kelly, calling him a co-owner of the network: 

The reply from bin Talal:

The prince’s tweet included news stories showing that he bought Trump’s yacht in 1991, which had been turned over to creditors when he was $900 million in debt, according to Buzzfeed. 

He also included a link to a story showing that he was part of the group that bought New York City’s Plaza Hotel from Trump in 1995. As part of the deal, bin Talal paid off Trump’s debt on the hotel in what the New York Times said was “a defeat for the real estate developer.”

Trump’s tweet also claimed bin Talal is “co-owner” of Fox News. While the prince is an investor in News Corp, his stake is worth 1 percent, according to CNN. Trump and bin Talal also tangled on Twitter last month.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/saudi-prince-alwaleed-donald-trump_us_56aafa72e4b0010e80e99806

So yeah, let's not go around thinking that Clinton is the only presumptive candidate with Saudi money somewhere.
 

Anti-Trump delegates are beginning to mobilize for the convention next month, in a long-shot attempt to dislodge their presumptive nominee, whose poll numbers are tanking spectacularly:

Quote

Saul Anuzis, a former Cruz convention adviser, has dismissed efforts to topple Trump as minimally organized so far, but he noted that the dynamic could be changing as Trump continues to irritate the GOP’s conservative base and sees his poll numbers sink to historic lows for a major-party nominee.

“I think there is a mounting grass-roots movement looking for an alternative, but little coordination or direction,” Anuzis said in an email. “If these groups can get together and agree to say ‘3 things’ where they share common goals, you could have a serious threat developing.

“The key is to convince the delegates that they have an option and that it’s not over,” he continued. “If they are successful in doing that, we have a ball game.”

It would be amazing if Trump managed to alienate enough delegates to sink his own candidacy by the time the convention rolls around.

[shdowhunt60]

So there you have it. Two out of the three major candidates we have are in bed with the same people who actively work towards our demise.

Truly, we're fucked.

[Nepenthe]

4 hours ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

America's best years were under liberal policies, so whatever would catapult liberals to power would be the best from a strictly utilitarian perspective.

Your "strictly utilitarian perspective" has no effect on the real life consequences of policy, and it's this kind of purely academic viewpoint that distances the speaker from the way the world actually operates that pisses off not only minorities, but also white working class people with low job prospects. I don't want to live in a world where my brother is at greater risk of dying or being disenfranchised than he already is for any number of years just because of your dissatisfaction with the current political climate. Bernie falling out- in large part due to his own ineptitude and callousness- is not more important than my quality of life.

Quote

I do wish this would drive a lot of people into the Libertarian Party so we could get a genuine three party system (never mind the Libertarian Party isn't quite as horrible as the GOP), but I won't hold my breath.

The Libertarian party is horrible too, if only because they believe tyranny of the majority is perfectly okay when the fucking states do it. What is the difference between having to choose between two bad candidates and having to choose between three?

[kboyrulez12345]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/senate-filibuster-victory-gun-control

Quote

After a nearly 15-hour filibuster filled with impassioned speeches from 44 Democrats to demand increased gun control, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) announced early Thursday morning that he had secured a promise by Republican leaders to hold a vote on gun control measures. Murphy, who represents the state where the 2012 Newtown shooting occurred, led the filibuster—the eighth longest in history—on Wednesday, announcing he had "had enough" of Congress' inaction on the issue.

The reported agreement will allow lawmakers to vote on two pieces of gun control legislation: one to expand background checks and another to block individuals listed on terrorist watchlists from obtaining guns. The development comes in the aftermath of the deadliest mass shooting in American history, which killed 49 people inside a gay nightclub in Orlando on Sunday.

Shortly after 2 a.m. on Thursday, after delivering a tribute to the victims of the 2012 Newtown massacre, Murphy announced he was officially yielding the floor. Watch the powerful moment above.

Fingers cross that this will lead to something, cause that's all we can do.

[Nepenthe]

They're going to vote "no" on the legislation. That NRA money strong. Still, a good try on the Democrats.

[Tani Coyote]

On 6/18/2016 at 7:05 AM, shdowhunt60 said:

So there you have it. Two out of the three major candidates we have are in bed with the same people who actively work towards our demise.

Truly, we're fucked.

I don't know if it's a good assumption that Saudis are automatically terror backers.

It's certainly concerning if a Presidential candidate has foreign powers bankrolling them, but they need not be terrorist supporters to make it concerning.

On 6/18/2016 at 9:47 AM, Nepenthe said:

Your "strictly utilitarian perspective" has no effect on the real life consequences of policy, and it's this kind of purely academic viewpoint that distances the speaker from the way the world actually operates that pisses off not only minorities, but also white working class people with low job prospects. I don't want to live in a world where my brother is at greater risk of dying or being disenfranchised than he already is for any number of years just because of your dissatisfaction with the current political climate. Bernie falling out- in large part due to his own ineptitude and callousness- is not more important than my quality of life.

But that quality of life will likely be much better once the GOP's ideals are confined to the dustbin. That's the idea here.

It's unfortunate what the effects of a Trump Presidency would be on various demographics, but I find it hard to say that his destroying the GOP's credibility wouldn't be helpful in the long run.

Though based on how many party moderates he's alienating, maybe he doesn't even need to become President for this to be achieved. A lot of people are starting to realize the kind of nutjobs that a lot of their fellow voters are, and that's what's really necessary.

By all means, if the GOP will permanently divide itself like it did back in the 1912 election, I'll be okay with Clinton winning. We can always threaten to throw the Democratic Party under the bus later.

On 6/18/2016 at 9:47 AM, Nepenthe said:

The Libertarian party is horrible too, if only because they believe tyranny of the majority is perfectly okay when the fucking states do it. What is the difference between having to choose between two bad candidates and having to choose between three?

If nothing else they tend to be more socially progressive, automatically making them superior to the GOP. The lack of Bible thumping, police states, and foreign interventionism makes Libertarianism more palatable even if it is not perfect.

Not sure where the idea of states' rights-focused tyranny of the majority comes from. Libertarians are very big on the idea of negative liberties.

[shdowhunt60]

15 minutes ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

I don't know if it's a good assumption that Saudis are automatically terror backers.

These are the same people who funded Al-Qaeda and 9/11, and then blackmailed the US government to stay quiet about it. I think we can rightly assume that they're not acting in our best interests.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Libertarian Party believes in tyranny of the majority when the states do it? The hell? 

Over what issues?

[Tani Coyote]

2 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

These are the same people who funded Al-Qaeda and 9/11, and then blackmailed the US government to stay quiet about it. I think we can rightly assume that they're not acting in our best interests.

The Saudi government does not back Al-Qaeda or similar groups. That would be insane.

There are plenty of donors to extremist groups in Saudi Arabia that the government turns a blind eye to, but that's not the same as supporting the groups themselves.

We have to remember where this is. Saudi Arabia is in all likelihood as fragile as Iraq, Syria, or other countries in the area at the end of the day. Prior to Muhammad, the tribes of the Arab peninsula were all too happily butchering each other (and despite Muhammad's request that tribal warfare not resume upon his death, those intra-Arab tensions remain). Of course the government doesn't take a strong stand against most terror donors, because that runs the risk of destabilizing the country.

Let's remember. They did crack down on Al-Qaeda after a while, hence the latter's weakness in recent years. It may have been a reluctant maneuver, but they were willing to do so to stay in the good graces of the United States. This is classic power politics: when you don't have a totalitarian grip on things, you will let other power brokers do as they will unless it threatens the status quo. Groups massacring civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan with the help of Saudi money? Not really their problem. Groups massacring American troops with Saudi money? Definitely their problem once we get wind of it.

Our relationship with the Saudis is mutually beneficial. We give them the military support they need to keep a grip on things, and they help keep oil supplies from doing anything crazy. They have no reason to go after terrorists on their soil unless they become enough of a threat to the West that Western armies might pay them a visit.