The General American Politics Thread

[Hyp3hat]

3 hours ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

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.

It's the fact that the the quality of life for many Americans would get so shitty, so quickly, and stay that way for four years that's the problem. Just today Trump said we should probably use racial profiling. He condoned harassing and arresting American citizens purely because of what they look like, and that has a very real chance of getting American citizens needlessly killed. 

Trump is damaging the GOP's credibility anyway, but even a disastrous Trump Presidency would not erase his base support, and would even legitimise their bigotry. I mean, even his mere presence in the race has given white supremacist groups a boost, can you imagine what they'd do if he was President?

Hilary's not perfect (at all), but what you're suggesting... the ends don't justify the means, and there's no guarantee it would work. It may even backfire. I get being disillusioned, but this is cutting yr nose off to spite your face.

[Nepenthe]

14 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

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

Over what issues?

Libertarianism as I know it is based around the idea of maximizing individual liberty over communal liberty, which means shrinking government down to just a few fundamental responsibilities (upholding property law and providing for the military mainly) and leaving most matters- including social ones- up to the states instead. The insurance of this model is that people as a whole will generally trend towards ideas and policies that don't harm others and thus the effects of anti-discrimination laws would not be threatened even without a federal mandate enshrining them, because apparently people are perfectly nice and perfectly objective and will always stand up for the little guy. It's nice enough in theory until you consider that institutional problems such as educational and workplace disparities don't magically disappear when you leave these issues up to the states (education especially), because flawed, corrupt, prejudiced, and sometimes outright bigoted humans still run the government at the state level.

For example, even in our country where gay marriage is legal, we're seeing significant local pushback against LGBT laws and protections. Now remember the United States where Obergefell didn't exist, where only like five states actually had full gay marriage and LGBT people were just completely fucked everywhere else? Imagine that awful reality but for every other protected class. Under a libertarian model of government, it would basically be legal in some states that were just backwards enough for businesses to fuck you over because you're black or a woman or a Muslim or gay, freely allowing tyrannies of the majority down within the states because, hey, what's the big deal? You can just move to another state if you don't like it.

Human rights are inherently in much more wary hands under a libertarian scheme than a federalist one, and personally I prefer being able to live my life with minimal risk of profiling and harassment over being able to smoke a blunt. This goes for other things too- business regulations, environmental regulations, infrastructure, taxes, medical and fire services- anything that the federal government has oversight on. We would all be more likely to be fucked if people actually had the legal choice to freely dump toxic shit in our waters or engage in slave wages or not spend money keeping up their bridges and things of that nature.

[kboyrulez12345]

On 6/18/2016 at 11:04 PM, Nepenthe said:

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

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/06/20/3790477/gun-control-votes/

It's sad that you were able to predict that with 100 percent accuracy.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

3 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

Libertarianism as I know it is based around the idea of maximizing individual liberty over communal liberty, which means shrinking government down to just a few fundamental responsibilities (upholding property law and providing for the military mainly) and leaving most matters- including social ones- up to the states instead. The insurance of this model is that people as a whole will generally trend towards ideas and policies that don't harm others and thus the effects of anti-discrimination laws would not be threatened even without a federal mandate enshrining them, because apparently people are perfectly nice and perfectly objective and will always stand up for the little guy. It's nice enough in theory until you consider that institutional problems such as educational and workplace disparities don't magically disappear when you leave these issues up to the states (education especially), because flawed, corrupt, prejudiced, and sometimes outright bigoted humans still run the government at the state level.

For example, even in our country where gay marriage is legal, we're seeing significant local pushback against LGBT laws and protections. Now remember the United States where Obergefell didn't exist, where only like five states actually had full gay marriage and LGBT people were just completely fucked everywhere else? Imagine that awful reality but for every other protected class. Under a libertarian model of government, it would basically be legal in some states that were just backwards enough for businesses to fuck you over because you're black or a woman or a Muslim or gay, freely allowing tyrannies of the majority down within the states because, hey, what's the big deal? You can just move to another state if you don't like it.

Human rights are inherently in much more wary hands under a libertarian scheme than a federalist one, and personally I prefer being able to live my life with minimal risk of profiling and harassment over being able to smoke a blunt. This goes for other things too- business regulations, environmental regulations, infrastructure, taxes, medical and fire services- anything that the federal government has oversight on. We would all be more likely to be fucked if people actually had the legal choice to freely dump toxic shit in our waters or engage in slave wages or not spend money keeping up their bridges and things of that nature.

Okay, then that sounds less like they believe "tyranny of the majority" and more like "blind optimism and idealism," because the fact that they believe people are nice, objective, and stand up for the little guy instead of the reality that we have a lot more selfish, greedy, and hypocritical bastards than they'd imagine doesn't strike as anything tyrannical of the majority.

Last I checked, however, their whole belief in the freedom to do what you "reasonably" want to do - more for individualism and actually against fucking over people regardless of what class they are, and that said minimal government should intervene in such cases when that happened but not in everything (like telling people to wear seatbelts else you get a ticket, for example), never mind that they advocate the legalization of drugs like marijuana - so you'd actually be protected from such harrassment and profiling. Not that such minimal government is the smartest idea of theirs given why we have government oversight in the first place for the very reasons they'd rather have it minimalized and how broad they risk defining things.

And yeah, that broad a system might just make it "legal" for business to fuck people over because of some arbitrary bullshit they made up overover people of color, sexual orientations, religions or gender. But that's not a belief in tyranny of the majority, that's a detrimental side effect of the system and one of the reasons why it's not a very realistic model. Even more, I'd imagine that would be a quagmire given that minority groups could actually use that system their defense if they get fucked over - and expose a lot of hypocrisies that could make the model collapse should the so-called majority deny it. Probably why post-communist Russia had problems when they did something very much like that, but someone feel free to enlighten me if I missed something on that.

[Nepenthe]

In a libertarian context, if a business promotes discriminatory laws, that's their right as individuals with choice. Regardless of whether or not all libertarians believe this is a likely outcome doesn't have anything to do with the actual systemic flaw and potential outcome of such a government's implementation, just like religious social conservatives' genuine belief that disallowing gay marriage will save the country's mortal soul doesn't mean their proposed policy ideas don't actually result in LGBT discrimination. Intention =/= results. Libertarian thought inevitably opens the door to state-level tyrannies of the majority regardless of whether or not any of them mean for this to happen. If your beef with me is that I chalked this up to an active belief, then whatever; I'll renege on that (though I've seen enough Randian libertarians in my day to believe that a good deal of them really don't care about minorities being thrown under the bus so long as the principle of individual freedom is upheld. Just look at GOP conventions where people cheer about poor people dying in the streets or Ron Paul's ugly racism), but it doesn't change the overall point I mean to make which is that libertarian utopias automatically suck for minorities compared to a system where a centralized government can ensure national protections.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Yeah...that was kinda my whole point as to why it's not a realistic model. That and the added quagmire that minorities could use that same system to expose hypocrisies and collapse the model given that said discriminatory laws would actually infringe on their personal liberties - the very thing Libertarians claim they don't want and would have a headache sorting out when that issue eventually rises in their system. Because then they'd likely have to turn themselves into the very thing they were against in the first place - a centralized government with oversight - just to fix the problem, and render their entire platform pointless just to avoid even bigger messes down the line.

The theory sounds good on paper, but like communism and what happened in post-USSR Russia, it's a mess in practice than it is anything malicious.

[Tani Coyote]

In essence, the Libertarian Party is the GOP but with a belief in a smaller military and more social liberalism. I will consider their ideas almost as bankrupt as the Republican Party's, but this is the tactical voting we were discussing with Hillary and Trump. I would rather have a Party more in line with the Founders' ideas than the GOP, even if it's not the Party that will ultimately have my vote. The ultimate difference between libertarians and conservatives largely seems to be the former believe people are good, the latter believe people are assholes.

Mostly though, I just want the right-wing vote split so that we can return to Democratic dominance once more. A mass flocking to the Libertarian banner would achieve this. They grab a few states here, the GOP grabs a few states there, but the Democratic Party would rule the roost. Short of rejecting Civil Rights, the issue that caused the current situation in the first place, the only way to marginalize fiscal conservatism is to split it between two forces.

After that, we'd just have to find a way to mitigate conservative elements from the Democratic Party and we can proceed on our journey towards a socialist utopia (yes that is exaggeration, a social democracy is more what I desire). In what's supposed to be a working class party, pro-business ideas like what Hillary promulgates on banking have no place in the platform.

Of course, that's a whole other issue. Americans as a whole have moved towards conservatism (racists making their policies as colorblind helped in this regard, never mind the appeal to the base racism that exists in pretty much everyone here), so we'd really need something to shake things up in favor of liberalism. There's a serious divide between the generally upwardly mobile progressives and the working class Democrats.

[Hyp3hat]

Just when you think Trump cannot surprise you any more.... What the hell is this mess? 

[Tani Coyote]

3 minutes ago, Hyp3hat said:

Just when you think Trump cannot surprise you any more.... What the hell is this mess? 

A guy who is a welcome replacement for George W. Bush as a Presidential candidate whose intelligence you don't think highly of.

The fact he's allowed himself to get scammed is just going to hurt his credibility even further... and if he ends up getting canned at the convention, it will be interesting to see what effects that has on the vote.

[Hyp3hat]

13 minutes ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

A guy who is a welcome replacement for George W. Bush as a Presidential candidate whose intelligence you don't think highly of.

The fact he's allowed himself to get scammed is just going to hurt his credibility even further... and if he ends up getting canned at the convention, it will be interesting to see what effects that has on the vote.

I'd be convinced that this is some Producers esque scam, were it not for the fact that Trump is just not bothering to raise any money for this campaign. 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I swear, for all his fuck ups, Bush was a hell of a lot smarter than Trump could ever aspire to be.

Not kidding when I say I'd rather have a third term of Bush than a single year of Trump.

[Dizcrybe]

That's not much of a compliment to Bush.

[Patticus]

Say what you like about Trump, but I think he's doing an absolutely fantastic job of looking convincingly farcical-yet-sinister.

Hopefully his new campaign manager, whomever it turns out to be, will be able to keep him going on that score.

[Tani Coyote]

24 minutes ago, Patticus said:

Say what you like about Trump, but I think he's doing an absolutely fantastic job of looking convincingly farcical-yet-sinister.

Hopefully his new campaign manager, whomever it turns out to be, will be able to keep him going on that score.

Democratic politicians have good intentions, but are largely incompetent.

Republican politicians have bad intentions, but are very competent.

With Mr. Trump, you get a two for one deal! Stupid AND evil all rolled up in one arrogant, balding package!

[Tani Coyote]

Speaking of Trump.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/06/21/clinton-gets-trump-to-finally-snap-in-a-fit-of-rage-he-admits-hes-little-more-than-a-con-artist/

Without a campaign manager to moderate his behavior, he went off the deep end. Foaming at the mouth, he boasted of using debt to enrich himself at taxpayers' expense, though claiming he wouldn't do the same as President. All the while, he spammed e-mails to news outlets trying to defame Clinton. All the while, he's Tweeting straight from his phone now rather than through his media team, so hilarity ensued.

All in response to remarks like Clinton saying that Trumps' books on business success all end at Chapter 11.

[Dizcrybe]

If I was sure this would hurt his campaign in any way I might care.

[Patticus]

Trump's not winning the White House in November without the support of independents, and he has often claimed that he'll be able to swing the blue collar Reagan Democrats over to his side at that time, too. Neither independents nor Reagan Democrats are likely to be terribly impressed by this balls-to-the-wall manic episode.

Then again, though, there are five whole months now separating us from election day, and a lot can happen in a day, let alone five months of 'em. So it remains to be seen whether anyone will remember this mania at that time. One can only hope that we see more such episodes, but I think it'll prove an experience that the Trump campaign will not soon repeat. Well, probably. Maybe. Possibly. Depending on if or when Trump can find a campaign manager who can manage him effectively.

[Hyp3hat]

51 minutes ago, Dizcrybe said:

If I was sure this would hurt his campaign in any way I might care.

His campaign is already suffering, tbh - he has over 90% disapproval ratings with African American and Hispanic voters, and his overall ratings are pitiful next to Hilary. 5 months of shit fits and general embarrassment on Twitter will just not boost his ratings. I mean, if a tame zing from Hilary during a speech makes him do that, he's going to probably going to go insane during a debate. He's so insecure.

[Nepenthe]

Since the Senate gun control measures failed, the house Democrats are now trying to do something by staging a sit-in to force action, led by John Lewis. You can't watch a live version of it because Ryan bitched out and cut the cameras, but here's a video of the beginning:

EDIT: C-SPAN was like "Lol, we got this" and have a livestream going.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Nepenthe

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

it's on now when it's getting close to congress throwing a tantrum. they have yelled, bitched, talked for hours and hours and now the sit in. what is it gonna take for everyone to reach a compromise? 

[Tani Coyote]

7 hours ago, Mikyeong said:

it's on now when it's getting close to congress throwing a tantrum. they have yelled, bitched, talked for hours and hours and now the sit in. what is it gonna take for everyone to reach a compromise? 

People to understand that common sense restrictions on gun purchases do not equate to massive government tyranny.

I have a riddle for many of these right-wing politicians and their supporters: if you are so afraid of government tyranny, why do you so enthusiastically vote "yea" on bigger armies and militarized police forces?

In case you forgot, the state's means of enforcing its will and creating oppression are the military and police. Plus, making the state more powerful undermines the whole idea of gun ownership as a means of resistance against tyranny. A small Army could possibly be overwhelmed by millions of militiamen. Millions of soldiers, though? Good luck.

If these folks would read the Founders' documents that they like to espouse all too often, they would know that the Founders believed in a small Army (the Founders were Englishmen and remembered Cromwell fondly) checked by a large militia, not a large army checked by a large militia. A small military was perfectly adequate for defense in American history, as volunteers could be called up from state militia and the draft in times of need.

But hey, that would require our military actually be meant for defense. The military and police of this country have increasingly moved away from the public good and more towards enforcing stratification and imperialism.

[Tani Coyote]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/06/25/26-democrats-who-participated-gun-control-sit-are-gun-owners

I love this bullshit they're spouting. It's "outrageous" that a lot of the sit in participants are gun owners. As if gun owners aren't allowed to think there should be common sense rules like background checks.

How many people legitimately believe firearms must be banned in their entirety?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-members-introduce-gun-control-compromise-democrats-sit/story?id=40117601

The plot thickens. A bipartisan group of Representatives have introduced a bill identical to Collins' Senate proposal. They actually began working on it prior to the sit-in, though. Most of them are Republican, and come from both blue and red states.

Apparently there's concern the sit-in has sunk any chances of a compromise, but I think there wasn't a chance for that prior either.

Overall though, it sounds like Orlando's pushing moderate GOP members towards basic restrictions.

[Tani Coyote]

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/06/27/breaking-supreme-court-defiantly-cuts-legs-off-of-nra-with-this-historic-ruling-video/

Holy crap.

The Supreme Court ruled that anyone guilty of domestic violence, even as a misdemeanor, is barred from owning firearms.

Yeah, this court gave us the Citizens United decision, but it's also upheld healthcare mandates, legalized gay marriage nationwide, and now is tightening gun control restrictions.

For a conservative Court, it sure has handed liberals some great victories.

[Nepenthe]

They also struck down those Texas laws dictating that abortion and women's health clinics needed unnecessary surgical standards and space in order to operate: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf

Good day to be a liberal.

[Tani Coyote]

I can't imagine the look on McConnell's face right now.

He's probably just "HEY ROBERTS, ASSHOLE! You're supposed to be on OUR side!"

That obstructionism isn't quite as fruitful as he was hoping for, it seems.

Then again, this seems to be a historical trend. Once a conservative justice is appointed, they sometimes end up turning very liberal. They're not responsible to any constituents, so they can do whatever they please so long as it doesn't anger enough of Congress they get an impeachment going. This was the case with Earl Warren, appointed by Eisenhower as a conservative... he went on to hand down some of the most liberal decisions in history. It was so bad, actually, that Eisenhower considered appointing Warren one of his biggest mistakes as President.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/17/democrats-rid-mitch-mcconnell-john-mccain-poll-shows-big-trouble-gop.html

Back to the GOP's obstructionism, though. It sounds like voters as a whole are not pleased with the blocking of hearings for Obama's nominee. John McCain, for example, is facing an uphill battle: while GOP voters are supportive of blocking nominees, the general public are very against the idea.

If McCain's situation is by any chance representative of the case nationwide (given how conservative Arizona is, I'd wager other Republican Senators are in worse positions), November doesn't bode well for the GOP.

The GOP's had great success the last two midterms as the Party of obstruction. But it seems 6 years later, the strategy will finally run out of steam, and force them out of power once more.