The General American Politics Thread

[Patticus]

It's pretty sad that it's considered a liberal value to insist that people with any kind of violent tendencies resulting in domestic violence be barred from firearm ownership. All too often, women who suffer domestic violence become the victims of their partners' gun(s). It's nice that the SCOTUS has recognized that fact, and has moved against those kind of people.

As for the abortion ruling, Texas' law only made sense in the context of the anti-abortion agenda of those supporting it - they can't outlaw abortion directly, but they can make it almost impossible for clinics to operate within the state. Now they can't, and it's a great thing.

[Tani Coyote]

I really think that Fox News opinion I posted earlier said it all. It was seen as scandalous that gun owners would participate in any sit in promoting gun control.

In the minds of the NRA and it seems a good deal of conservatives, any attempt at regulation is government tyranny. It's ridiculous.

I just look forward to when we do have gun control, and crime and violence still being high (if reduced) will be used as an excuse to try and roll it back. "See, it didn't really do anything, haha!" they will say... completely ignoring that maybe a score of other mostly right-wing policies are to blame for the violent nature of our society.

Get rid of the death penalty. Release nonviolent offenders. Abolish victimless crimes. Only send the worst of the worst to prison. Expand education, healthcare, and welfare. Combine these with basic restrictions, and we'll most likely see crime and massacres drop like a stone.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Yeah, out of all those things, I can't say I agree with abolishing the death penalty. But that's so far down in the list of things I care about that it won't really bother me at all if that were to happen.

[Tani Coyote]

9 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Yeah, out of all those things, I can't say I agree with abolishing the death penalty.

Why not?

Life imprisonment is cheaper.

Capital punishment falls disproportionately on minorities (like states' rights, it has always been a favorite tool of racial control).

Capital punishment gives the state broad license to kill its own citizens, and is by default a punitive measure. A private citizen can only kill another person in immediately dangerous circumstances, but a state can do so 20 or 30 years later?

Innocent people get wrongly convicted all the time, and wrongful executions are an inevitability given the system is not perfect. Killing someone who is not guilty undermines the whole idea of justice.

Having execution as the ultimate penalty sends the message to criminals that killing people is the worst thing they could do. Furthermore, the sheer severity of the penalty might encourage someone to commit even more killings.

All the death penalty does is glorify violence. Europe does just fine without the death penalty. It's a hell of a lot safer than here. Get rid of it, the same as all the other "tough on crime" nonsense we have on the books.

If we value human life, we must value the lives of the guilty as well as the innocent. Never mind, justice requires you protect your villains as much as your heroes. We raise a fit when a criminal gets off on a technicality, but it runs the point home that there are actions a state simply cannot do against its citizens.

Overall, though. I really don't think we should ever say a human's death is a good thing, regardless of what they have done. Capital punishment says a person's death is so good that the state itself must do the deed.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

10 hours ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Why not?

Primarily because I think the most heinous of people deserve it, and in those cases I personally value the lives of the guilty far less than that of the innocent. And given that I actually advocate violence as a viable solution to problems (within reason and as a last resort, mind you), I'm not all that bothered by the death penalty somehow glorifying it.

But at the same time, I recognize that it has problems and can easily be used a lot more arbitrarily than it should be for a lot of the reasons you stated, especially with it being used as a tool for racial control. And that's why, even if I don't agree with abolishing it, I wouldn't be bothered to fight it if that were to happen as there are more pressing matters than the pros and cons of capital punishment.

[Tani Coyote]

11 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Primarily because I think the most heinous of people deserve it, and in those cases I personally value the lives of the guilty far less than that of the innocent.

Ah, but this runs the risk of a slippery slope. Once we start categorizing people as deserving and undeserving of life, where do we draw the line?

Serial killers and genocidal dictators generally register as being valid targets for capital punishment, but what of rapists? Heads of criminal organizations? Repeat violent offenders? This is where it suddenly becomes very blurry, and varies from person to person. While the Supreme Court's official opinion is that only crimes involving killing are fair game for capital punishment, it's no secret a lot of people have reservations on the idea.

This is especially true for rape, which was traditionally justification for mob action (I mean, rape was the catalyst for the Republic of Rome's foundation, even). Speaking of said mob action, that's even more reason to get rid of the idea. We need to establish that no matter what, taking human life is not something you do barring extreme, immediate circumstances. Lynch mobs felt they were in the right to murder people, regardless of their guilt. This is not a surprise, because the society they were in established it was okay to kill people guilty of certain offenses.

Let's consider the absurd crimes people have been put to death for in the past. It's ultimately better to retire the whole idea to avoid opening a massive can of worms. The greatest tragedy of human thinking is the idea we are so much better than our predecessors we can't repeat their errors.

So a serial killer lives a few more decades. He has little freedom, however, so in many ways it may just be a worse fate than death. The handful of monsters who are allowed to keep their lives under life imprisonment outweighs the possible dangers of letting executions continue.

11 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

And given that I actually advocate violence as a viable solution to problems (within reason and as a last resort, mind you), I'm not all that bothered by the death penalty somehow glorifying it.

The death penalty is not glorifying noble violence like the kind committed by an oppressed people, though. It is glorifying killing for killing's sake. A guy behind bars is, barring an unlikely escape attempt, no longer a threat. There is little reason to execute him (you may have some leeway in killing him during an escape attempt though, depending on how it goes). The same way private citizens lose their legal ability to kill someone the moment they turn tail and run. Execution is not self-defense or just war.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

33 minutes ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Ah, but this runs the risk of a slippery slope.

Which is one of the reasons why I wouldn't really fight any moves to abolish it. I'd like to say in general circumstances that people should know better for the most part, and that it turns into a slippery slope is because they think or know they can get away with it, regardless of it being wrong, and they'll do it anyway. 

Quote

Once we start categorizing people as deserving and undeserving of life, where do we draw the line?

Serial killers and genocidal dictators generally register as being valid targets for capital punishment, but what of rapists? Heads of criminal organizations? Repeat violent offenders? This is where it suddenly becomes very blurry, and varies from person to person. While the Supreme Court's official opinion is that only crimes involving killing are fair game for capital punishment, it's no secret a lot of people have reservations on the idea.

I can see how it's blurry for rapists. Cases like Brock Turner, who fucking got away with a six-month sentence, are the kind that make me think capital punishment would be fitting for him. But given how messy arguments over rape can get, from false accusations ruining innocent people's live to true accusations not getting the help they deserve and trivializing rape culture, it makes me think it's not a good idea to use capital punishment for such a crime just to avoid the drama of it. Never mind those who've had the exact same cases like Brock Turner and received harsher penalties for it, so to let one go with a slap on the wrist while the other gets the worst of it just drives me nuts over the logic behind it. But I chalk that up to people in charge being absolute bastards when they do this.

Quote

Let's consider the absurd crimes people have been put to death for in the past. It's ultimately better to retire the whole idea to avoid opening a massive can of worms. The greatest tragedy of human thinking is the idea we are so much better than our predecessors we can't repeat their errors.

Oh, I'm convinced that the absurd crimes that have resulted in capital punishment is enough to retire the idea. I'm just not above the idea of capital punishment in general being used for actual heinous people like serial killers. At the end of the day it doesn't make me think I'm any better or worse than our predecessors over their errors, but I'd like to think we can learn from them.

[Tani Coyote]

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/06/27/just-in-mike-huckabee-hit-with-very-expensive-lawsuit-the-reason-why-will-make-you-smile/

Remember Huckabee using "Eye of the Tiger" at Kim Davis' release? He was able to get away with it by claiming it was for a religious ceremony...

...he marked it as a campaign expense, though, and he got sued for using it as a result.

But let's look at what his spokesperson said on the matter, saying that the musician "is demanding an amount of money that exceeds the average yearly salary of a hard-working American simply because a snippet of his song was played briefly at a rally."

...there are so many things wrong with this. Let's get started.

1. This is the free market at work. You don't get to imply people's wages are unreasonable... or are you a dirty socialist all of a sudden? It's wrong to criticize an industrialist's massive fortune, but not a musician's? What? It is their music, they can ask for whatever royalties they desire... you don't like it, get someone else's music.

2. That's copyright law for you. You and your cronies made it what it is. Don't cry it's unreasonable when you're the one who made it as broad as it is. Your "snippet" falls within the boundaries of broad copyright law. Write better laws.

3. "...the average yearly salary of a hard working American..." No. Just no. The GOP takes a shit on working class Americans far too often to play this class angle. Huckabee doesn't get to act like he's a minimum wage single mother with three kids getting sued by a greedy record company for a benign act of copyright infringement. He manipulated his taxes (like a lot of well to do people), and he's getting a kick in the ass for it, as he deserves.

This hypocrisy is delicious. ...and infuriating.

Quote

Oh, I'm convinced that the absurd crimes that have resulted in capital punishment is enough to retire the idea. I'm just not above the idea of capital punishment being used for actual heinous people like serial killers.

I don't think that's what's really the point of disagreement here. While many might agree with the principle of capital punishment, in application, it causes more harm than good. That's what I'm trying to get at.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Just now, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

I don't think that's what's really the point of disagreement here. While many might agree with the principle of capital punishment, in application, it causes more harm than good. That's what I'm trying to get at.

Yeah...I understood it the first time. That's why I kept saying I wouldn't be bothered by it being abolished given that it has been applied in ways it wasn't and shouldn't be intended, while at the same time I'm not against the principle and cases when it would actually be justified.

[Tani Coyote]

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286472-fbi-no-charges-against-clinton

Let's rephrase what the FBI guy said, shall we?

"She broke the law, yeah, but... we think it's a waste of time to bring charges so let's move on!"

He's also full of shit. "No reasonable prosecutor would bring a case." You expect me to believe there's not a single damned legal official in this land who wouldn't jump at the chance to become a household name by singlehandedly sinking a Presidential campaign? Is this a joke?

I don't care if Trump is worse. I don't want to vote for a criminal.

Edward Snowden's reaction says it all, though:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/06/fbi-announces-no-charges-for-hillary-edward-snowden-immediately-does-this/

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Um...kinda telling how bad Trump is if he's worse than a criminal  don't you think?

[Tani Coyote]

Either way, this election is horrible.

We either have to legitimize a racist, or a paragon of corruption. This election almost seems like a massive parody of the idea of voting for the lesser evil that's applied to each election, except this time people legitimately don't really like either one.

That we're funneled into voting for either one literally on the basis they're not the other one speaks to how much of a joke this whole system is. Seriously, this should be swinging huge numbers of people in favor of Instant Runoff Voting.

[Dizcrybe]

It probably won't though, and the honest truth is, there's nothing we, the people, can really do about it. I say just vote Clinton and hope for better (in relative terms) candidates next election.

[Tani Coyote]

My conscience doesn't make that an appealing option is the problem. I don't care about the people yelling that I can't complain about the result if I don't vote for one or the other. I don't like either, so I choose neither. I'll do a write in probably, and that makes me just as good a citizen as anyone voting for the viable candidates.

She got where she is through some really shady crap. I'm not gonna legitimize it by saying yes to her.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

I lean towards Trump, however why do people care so much about Hillary's emails? The American people are kinda tired of hearing about them.

[Tani Coyote]

Just now, Mikyeong said:

I lean towards Trump, however why do people care so much about Hillary's emails? The American people are kinda tired of hearing about them.

Mishandling of information that violated the State Department's laws, by the State Department's own admission.

It doesn't matter if people are tired of hearing about it. Crime is crime, and should be punished.

Some people like to counter Powell and Rice did the same thing to try and make this out as a GOP tactic (which it no doubt is, but anyway). Most excellent, two more people who should have been punished.

[Kevin]

On July 7, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286472-fbi-no-charges-against-clinton

Let's rephrase what the FBI guy said, shall we?

"She broke the law, yeah, but... we think it's a waste of time to bring charges so let's move on!"

He's also full of shit. "No reasonable prosecutor would bring a case." You expect me to believe there's not a single damned legal official in this land who wouldn't jump at the chance to become a household name by singlehandedly sinking a Presidential campaign? Is this a joke?

I don't care if Trump is worse. I don't want to vote for a criminal.

Edward Snowden's reaction says it all, though:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/06/fbi-announces-no-charges-for-hillary-edward-snowden-immediately-does-this/

I thInk Snowden's reaction sums it up perfectly. Honestly, I'm not surprised the FBI Dieector made it this call. It shows exactly how biased the justice system is towards the rich and famous.

[Tani Coyote]

14 minutes ago, Kevin said:

I thInk Snowden's reaction sums it up perfectly. Honestly, I'm not surprised the FBI Dieector made it this call. It shows exactly how biased the justice system is towards the rich and famous.

A lot of Clinton's defenders are saying that as a Republican, Comey was just interested in smearing her and had no real case.

But at the same time, the State Department's fairly clear she violated protocol. Perhaps not in a criminal sense, but her inability follow rules as a Secretary already makes me concerned for what she'll do as a President.

Because, you know, following the rules is kind of key for rule of law to exist. Trump's got the "I'll do whatever I want regardless of my constitutional limits" attitude going on; Hillary shouldn't be implicitly saying the same thing with her actions.

[Toa Axis]

And so it has happened:

"It is no secret that Hillary Clinton and I disagree on a number of issues. That’s what this campaign has been about. That’s what democracy is about. But I am happy to tell you that at the Democratic Platform Committee which ended Sunday night in Orlando, there was a significant coming together between the two campaigns and we produced, by far, the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party. Our job now is to see that platform implemented by a Democratic Senate, a Democratic House and a Hillary Clinton president – and I am going to do everything I can to make that happen.

I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care. I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children.

Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today."

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/12/12160214/bernie-sanders-endorses-hillary-clinton-statement

[Kevin]

1 hour ago, Toa Axis said:

And so it has happened:

"It is no secret that Hillary Clinton and I disagree on a number of issues. That’s what this campaign has been about. That’s what democracy is about. But I am happy to tell you that at the Democratic Platform Committee which ended Sunday night in Orlando, there was a significant coming together between the two campaigns and we produced, by far, the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party. Our job now is to see that platform implemented by a Democratic Senate, a Democratic House and a Hillary Clinton president – and I am going to do everything I can to make that happen.

I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care. I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children.

Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today."

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/12/12160214/bernie-sanders-endorses-hillary-clinton-statement

I had a feeling Sanders was going to endorse Clintkn eventually anyway. It wouldn't look good for him if he refused to considering Clinton was gong to be the nominee anyway.

[Patticus]

Sanders more or less had to endorse Clinton, or he risked splitting the party further and giving Trump a real shot in November. It was pretty obvious that he'd go the distance and do it once it became clear that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were accommodating his demands for the party platform -- as much as they could, at least. He got some great deals in the platform, and the Warren camp even put some text into the platform that limits the Clinton administration's ability to be influenced by Wall Street.

Of course, there are salty tears flowing everywhere. Jill Stein's super pissed off, as are quite a few vocal Sanders supporters. If you ask me, though, it was necessary for this coming together to happen. Nobody benefits from Sanders going to the Greens, going independent or just grumpily not endorsing Clinton.

[Nepenthe]

Pragmatism above perfection. If the goal is to promote and advance progressive ideals, you don't hand off the election to a fucking racist instead.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

Of course, if you are a democrat you are gonna endorse a democrat. That's how it works. 

[Tani Coyote]

The platform certainly sounds promising with its combination of economic and racial justice.

I'd be more eager to fall in line behind her if I knew we could actually make her future campaigns suffer if she fails to live up to those promises.

Remember how minorities trusted Clinton more on race issues because she included them from the start? Same thing's going on here. How do I know she won't slide her compromises under the table once she's in office?

Sanders' willingness to endorse her indicates that he is willing to trust her for this election cycle. I certainly hope there's an implicit threat that he won't be so eager to go "Blue No Matter Who" next time if she doesn't act in good faith.

Coalitions should always have a nuclear option involved, a threat to let the other side win regardless of damage to oneself. If you don't play ball, we drop out of the coalition. It works for Parliamentary systems, it should be done here as well. Party unity only is a good idea so long as the larger factions reliably make concessions to smaller ones.

In short though. I will vote for Clinton not because she's Clinton, but because of the platform constructed and her promise to carry it out. Should she break her promise, I will be one less person at the polls in 2020.

[Tani Coyote]

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/07/12/republican-national-committee-adopts-gay-conversion-therapy-into-party-platform-details/

...As the Democratic Party gets ready to adopt the most left-wing agenda in decades, it appears the GOP is going the other direction. Trump is actively courting the religious right based on everything I can find. The net result? Short of not gaining the support of an RNC committee, inclusion of support for conversion therapy will be voted on at the convention next week.

This is just one of many proposals that has passed subcommittees and will be voted on by a final RNC committee before presented to the delegates at the convention.

Other gems passed by the subcommittees include:

-A constitutional amendment that will overturn the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision and leave the issue to each state.

-Teaching the Bible in schools as a historic document.

-Forcing transgender people to use the bathroom associated with the sex they were assigned at birth.

With this shit in play, I don't blame Bernie for endorsing Hillary. This is no longer Hillary vs. Trump. Both parties are showing their status as broad coalitions, and it's progressives versus far right nutjobs.