The General American Politics Thread

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Repeal the 19th Amendment?!

The fu--okay, no. I don't care how tasteless comes off - anyone who says that shit needs to be shot by a firing squad.

Gender politics are one thing, but that kind of selfish greed and inconsideration absolutely needs to die because it's nothing but a temper tantrum by people who refuse to mentally grow up.

[Mad Convoy]

18 hours ago, Raccoon Bandit Ogilvie said:

They'd probably find that fantasy less appetizing upon realizing that many of them (given Trump's appeal to blue collar workers) would be working in hazardous factories for piss poor wages if they weren't one of the lucky ones who built a homestead in the middle of nowhere. Race, gender, class. The trinity of American stratification. It may have rocked to be white and male as opposed to black and female, but it still sucked to be poor. They'd also find the job security they crave would be non-existent at the time, given capitalists were quite fond of using the threat of non-white laborers to break unions (not to mention, calling in private militias or the United States Army to crush strikes).

The only real "good ole days" for white men in this country is going to be the post-war period, where well-paying, unionized jobs were abundant and the social safety net was strong, and a huge middle class emerged as a result of the GI Bill (and all these benefits were pretty thoroughly racialized so privileged white people could point at non-whites, wave their finger and go, "why can't you be like us?!"). And, while women still could vote at this time, it meant about as much as Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s, as men could still legally and socially dominate them (case in point: marital rape doesn't become illegal nationwide until 1993).

Right-wing elements have an interesting tendency to forget that much of what they love is the result of what were once left-wing policies. It's only evil socialism when you don't agree with it, of course.

Well, you have to remember that most of these misogynists assume that they would be the rich, popular men of their idealized society-- because they think the reason they're not is because of women's rights somehow and if they take that out of the equation, they're free to live up to their full potential. Right-wingers tend to assume similar, but replace women's rights with whatever or whoever they dislike. They're wrong, of course, but they won't figure that out until its too late. Besides that, I see your point.

One thing I don't see is right-wingers and Trump supporters considering why exactly women don't like Trump as much as men do. In fact, they seem to actively avoid that subject, at best giving non-answers like "They're just jealous!", "What are you talking about? Forget the librul polls, the silent majority of women love Trump!", "Only a SJW would ever hate Trump! Therefore they are SJWs and I have every right to want to oppress them!", etc. I suppose they wouldn't like the real answer-- lord forbid they have to accept that he deserves every ounce of his bad reputation.

[Dizcrybe]

The "repeal the 19th" amendment thing has been news. I'm surprised y'all ain't hear about it till now.

[Nepenthe]

Not sure why this is surprising when this is honestly just the most logical conclusion of GOP voting suppression measures they've been trying forever.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

It's not surprising in the slightest, but it being even more blatant being the issue.

The saving grace that the President can't repeal shit -- only Congress can -- makEs it a non-issue. But really, we can do without suck folks.

[Tani Coyote]

1 hour ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

The saving grace that the President can't repeal shit -- only Congress can -- makEs it a non-issue. But really, we can do without suck folks.

Basically why we can't let Trump in no matter what one's beef with Clinton is.

Besides. There's no realistic way the Democrats will take both Houses of Congress by a two-thirds margin. This means President Trump will be able to block any progressive legislation and there's nothing that can be done about it.

Frankly, I'm almost of the opinion Democrats who refuse to vote Hillary should be publicly shamed. They're willing to throw away what could be the most progressive Presidency in decades, all because they don't like who the President would be. Have we already forgotten how Bill Clinton has his fair share of bad qualities, but his term is still considered one of the best?

Fortunately, it seems the sentiment is largely confined to Sanders supporters who felt cheated, even though in hindsight it's fairly unlikely he would have ever gotten the nomination. It also blissfully ignores the numerous anti-democratic things his campaign did, so it's downright hypocritical to blast Clinton for being undemocratic.

But yeah. They're not being moral or ethical by refusing to partake in the system. They're that guy who sees a crime in an alleyway and just keeps on walking without so much as calling the police. They are complicit in whatever President Trump brings, whether they like it or not. They're being irresponsible, not noble.

[Dizcrybe]

Disgruntled Bernie fans annoy me, to be honest. "Man, I wish Bernie was running..." Yeah, but, he's not, is he? Get over it.

[Candescence]

They can't even repeal the 19th without a referendum, and good look with that getting any kind of majority, nevermind getting a referendum about that getting up to speed in the first place. There'll be one on tearing down Citizens United loooooooonnnnnnggggg before any kind of attempt to repeal the 19th is even seriously considered.

[Patticus]

I first heard about the idea of repealing the 19th amendment because "women were voting wrong" back in 2008, when the insane Ann Coulter spouted that particular glob of bile in an interview. Luckily, as badly as the tyrannical minority wants it, there is no political will to do anything of the sort - and there would have to be an overwhelming super-majority of house/senate members to get anywhere near repealing it.

There's no going back. Republican politicians are going to have to stop holding misogynistic views, if they want to win back the trust of female voters. 

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/07/14/definitive-guide-us-states-voting-recreational-medical-marijuana-inovember-2016-election/58063/

9 states have medical/recreational cannabis legalization on the ballot this year. The California initiative is getting plenty of attention, because if it is legalized there, it is likely going to bleed into federal policy and we will see a softening of federal marijuana law. Support is hovering around 60% overall, so it is likely to pass barring some really weird shenanigans on Election Day.

On 10/25/2016 at 4:14 AM, Patticus said:

I first heard about the idea of repealing the 19th amendment because "women were voting wrong" back in 2008, when the insane Ann Coulter spouted that particular glob of bile in an interview. Luckily, as badly as the tyrannical minority wants it, there is no political will to do anything of the sort - and there would have to be an overwhelming super-majority of house/senate members to get anywhere near repealing it.

There's no going back. Republican politicians are going to have to stop holding misogynistic views, if they want to win back the trust of female voters. 

They're going to have a Hell of a time. Assuming they can overcome the racist segment of the Party, they're likely going to have to fall back on conservative blacks and Latinos. The latter group is likely going to keep gender equality from being realized within the Party given the patriarchal nature of the Catholic Church and the influence this can have on those from Latin American cultures. Consider, for example, the Church's implicit belief that women are incapable of preaching God's word as men do; something like THAT is going to alienate a lot of women. Catholic men might fall in line behind the GOP, but I wouldn't be surprised if Catholic women are far more hesitant to do so.

The Democrats interestingly have a strong presence among both Catholics and women, but I'd assume a lot of the Catholic support stems from the historical racism many American Catholics have faced due to their status either as non-white or the "half white" bullshit that was cooked up for Southern Europeans and the Irish. They are ultimately a conservative demographic, though they are open to more government programs than Protestants by far. This ties back to what I've mentioned before, though, that Civil Rights brings a lot of people into the Democratic Party who might otherwise go elsewhere.

In short, I can see the GOP moving beyond racism, but I think it's going to have a much, much harder battle fighting sexism. I think it's pretty telling there was black suffrage decades for women's suffrage and Civil Rights decades before marital rape was banned in this country; racism is a strong undercurrent in American politics but I think we could argue sexism is even stronger. Whereas Obama was slandered with just plain nonsense, Hillary is being slandered with more realistic nonsense, an idea that she is somehow vastly more corrupt than any other politician.

I think the eventual realignment will see the Republicans embracing traditional values, aggressive foreign policy, and an expanded social safety net, while the Democrats will be feminist, more interested in diplomacy, and support a much broader social safety net.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Sexism in general just pisses me right the fuck off as much as racism, and I swear if I wasn't frowned upon I'd jaw any person to say anything like "Men/women are superior to the other." That's just a bunch of arbitrary nonsense people use to stroke their egos and justify shit they wouldn't like done onto them - you'd think they'd show empathy and realize they'd be stronger if they support and help each other, but apparently there's more to gain wasting energy fighting like it's all a zero-sum game. (don't mind me, just venting on this)

Makes me wonder how things will be when we get the next female president running for office.

What exactly would an expanded social safety net mean under Republicans? Only thing I can side with would be the aggressive foreign policy (balanced by diplomacy from the Democrats, lest we have another quagmire like Iraq War).

[Tani Coyote]

1 hour ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

What exactly would an expanded social safety net mean under Republicans?

Probably something closer to what they supported during the New Deal era. So we'd rollback welfare reform to eliminate the limits and the police state welfare recipients are subjected to. We really have to remember: welfare reform didn't really become a big issue until horror stories of black Americans with huge numbers of children collecting assistance started hitting the presses. We'd also see the abandonment of this "privatize social security" bullshit in favor of actually, well, making it sustainable.

They would likely eventually accept universal healthcare as a given, as many Western conservatives outside the US do. The dual existence of Medicaid and Medicare leaves an odd specter over American politics that means single payer is probably going to eventually happen. One area they will definitely break with Democrats is going to be over contraception and abortion, the latter especially if they start absorbing the Catholic vote.

I don't know about universal tuition, but I imagine that things like higher minimum wages and support for organized labor are going to remain the camp of the Democrats, as they have historically been.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

So you mean to tell me that such welfare was actually a great idea that helped people until they learned that it helped black Americans and wanted it to stop?

...does racism correlate with brain damage or something? I always thought it was due to greed, but holy fuck, people basically shot themselves in the foot because they didn't want African Americans to have decent lives?

[Tani Coyote]

3 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

So you mean to tell me that such welfare was actually a great idea that helped people until they learned that it helped black Americans and wanted it to stop?

...does racism correlate with brain damage or something? I always thought it was due to greed, but holy fuck, people basically shot themselves in the foot because they didn't want African Americans to have decent lives?

More or less.

Historically, welfare was relatively generous and there was little incentive to get off it. No work requirements, it could cover a lot... in spite of that, 3/4 of the people on it still left the rolls within 5 years. However, like all social programs, welfare was pretty racialized for much of its history: programs were set up in black areas at much lower rates than others, and standards were in place that worked to discriminate against blacks in particular (compare how Social Security historically originally excluded farm laborers and domestic servants... in other words, occupations that were largely black at the time of passage). And of course, with the Southern Democrats serving as a strong part of the New Deal bloc, the feds had no interest in changing this.

Then the Civil Rights era hit. The Southerners, who had originally been fiscally liberal, were alienated by the rise of Civil Rights. Nixon managed to court them towards his more conservative policies, and Reagan just intensified the rise of fiscal conservatism. The Southerners not only abandoned the New Deal coalition; they and the GOP decided that if the welfare state couldn't be racialized to maintain white supremacy, they'd just tear the whole thing down, because the free market would keep blacks in a subordinate position (see: Northern style racism, which relied on private discrimination instead of actual laws). Dress the whole thing up as "more efficient" and "rewarding hard work" and all that feel good bullshit the GOP and Libertarian Parties spew forth today, and voila, you have a way to be racist without being racist! On top of that, it was a good time to crush unions now that they weren't able to freely ban blacks from joining. Like with the poll tax, well-to-do whites were all too happy to throw the less fortunate whites under the bus in the name of racial supremacy.

Welfare was originally relatively safe, because history made it so most recipients were white; many blacks, quite frankly, didn't know where to start about applying (as most families had been unable to qualify for decades). Then a few activist organizations formed, and they signed up black families in droves. Needless to say, the horror stories of single black mothers with huge numbers of children were what caught people's eye, and "welfare abuse" was suddenly an issue when it had never really been one before. Note how the modern stereotype is welfare being a "black" thing (in spite of the fact there are just as many whites on welfare in absolute terms), when historically there were barely any blacks on welfare.

So yeah. When presented the choice of a high standard of living or white supremacy, a surprising number of Americans chose, and continue to choose, white supremacy. They may say it's for non-racial purposes, but it is impossible to deny the strong relationship between fiscal conservatism and racial stratification. I guess it boils down to the fact that in absence of money to level the playing field (let's note the more affluent blacks are often the ones convinced racism is a myth), it's a hell of a lot better to be a poor white as opposed to a poor black. It feeds the ego quite nicely...

It reminds me of a study where the participants were each assigned a dollar value in increments of one. They were then asked who they would give a dollar to: the person above or below them. Most chose the person above them, rather than be a dollar poorer than the person below them.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/27/499668126/defendants-in-oregon-wildlife-refuge-occupation-found-not-guilty?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews

Remember how the local Indian tribe said that if they tried something like this, they'd have been crushed by the Army, because they aren't white?

Looks like they're on the money. The Bundys and their buddies won't be facing any charges for the armed occupation of the wildlife refuge.

There's still the 2014 case of the Bundy ranch, where they face similar charges, but this doesn't leave much room for optimism.

I just think this comes at the worst possible time. With all the problems boiling to the surface from the Trump campaign on issues like guns, "government oppression," etc. are these courts not worried that this is going to set bad precedent? Judges, in reality, aren't supposed to just think about the case on hand, but its broader impact on society. We're a common law system: each case is used to resolve similar ones down the line. Judges effectively refine the law through interpretation. Not slapping them with at least some sort of penalty is absolutely irresponsible on the part of the judge.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

17 hours ago, Raccoon Bandit Ogilvie said:

So yeah. When presented the choice of a high standard of living or white supremacy, a surprising number of Americans chose, and continue to choose, white supremacy.

No wonder people other other sides of the ocean think we're boorish morons. That makes no fucking sense!

You'd think a high standard of living so that you don't have to worry about being in a serious rut would triumph over that nonsense - what sense is there to think being racially superior, yet poor, is better than being equal and well off? How many brain cells do these people lack?

[KHCast]

Pride's a bitch ain't it?

[Dizcrybe]

6 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

No wonder people other other sides of the ocean think we're boorish morons. That makes no fucking sense!

You'd think a high standard of living so that you don't have to worry about being in a serious rut would triumph over that nonsense - what sense is there to think being racially superior, yet poor, is better than being equal and well off? How many brain cells do these people lack?

As has been stated, a lot of these people aren't well-educated, if at all, dare I say.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

6 hours ago, Dizscream said:

As has been stated, a lot of these people aren't well-educated, if at all, dare I say.

How much education does it really take to realize being well off without racism is better than being poor, but socially superior. Like wtf?

[Mad Convoy]

Yet another email scandal for Clinton. Apparently the FBI is looking into a few emails despite them being assessed to not have anything to do with the democratic party, as they appeared to be pertinent to the investigation that was already going on. It isn't sure how long this investigation will take place or if it will mean anything in the end, or if the emails are even relevant.

But according to Donald Trump, what this really means is that the FBI is revisiting its original decision and correcting its mistake by charging Clinton guilty. "Lock her up! Lock her up!" Again, before the investigation has found anything that's they can confirm is even against protocol, let alone illegal. "Innocent until proven guilty" is apparently a concept he isn't all that familiar with. But is that surprising? No, not really.

While the news is treating this like enough of an October surprise that Trump could be in the clear, I think this will all blow over in a matter of days, if not by tomorrow. The emails have become what amounts to background noise at this point, with most of HRC's supporters not really caring anymore or loudly declaring them untrue or unreliable. Unless the investigation actually finds enough stuff to make a case-- doubtful within 11 days considering how the FBI will have to factor that the emails are potentially not even hers or have otherwise been tampered with when conducting the investigation-- this will probably not appear on the news in the coming days. Not to mention that whatever's in those emails has got to be pretty screwed up to be considered worse than sexually assaulting young women, condoning statutory rape when its conducted by female teachers to male students, and telling underage girls that he'll be dating them in 10 years.

Though of course Clinton is going to get flack no matter what the investigation says. Investigation finds nothing? RIGGED SYSTEM, SHE MUST'VE PAID THEM ALL OFF! Investigation finds something? KNEW IT, SHE'S GETTIN' LOCKED UP! Investigation happens? SHE MUST BE SUSPICIOUS IF THE FBI IS LOOKING INTO IT! SHE MAY AS WELL BE GETTING A GUILTY VERDICT RIGHT NOW! Investigation doesn't happen because its deemed unnecessary? SHE MUST'VE PAID SOMEBODY OFF!

While its never a good idea to assume a winner before an election has finished (seriously guys, please vote), its also not a good idea to jump on stuff like investigations that haven't even finished for a case already on shaky ground as something that could spell the undoing for a candidate. (Its also important to note that Trump supporters always claims that what they dig up will be the end of Clinton. The reality is, they haven't dug up anything of the sort.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html?_r=0

[Patticus]

Apparently, the emails that the FBI has found to be of relevance to to Clinton email probe are from a device owned by Anthony Weiner, the disgraced former congressman (currently under investigation for sending lewd texts to a 15-year-old girl) and husband of long-time Clinton aide, Huma Abedin. Their content and whether or not Clinton even received them is not yet known.

This has the potential to sink Clinton's campaign at the last second, if anything serious comes of it.

[Mad Convoy]

But the thing is, I sort of doubt anything serious will come of it, at least not before the election. 11 days is a really short period of time for an investigation in general, especially for cases like the Clinton correspondences where there's a lot of false information (and a foreign interest happy to interfere with the process) to filter through. Plus nothing has really come of the emails-- the FBI looked through them and found nothing worth pressing charges over. People can't even make drama over lack of cooperation-- she has given all documents requested by the FBI for use in the investigation. 

It doesn't help that we're nearing the end of the election where a lot of people have made up their mind. The reason the emails were so damaging to Clinton's campaign when they first got leaked was because they were unprecedented-- nobody expected them to get leaked like that and there was so much we didn't know about them. The fact that she's potentially a criminal was scary for a lot of people. Plus there were a lot more people who were undecided or shaky on Clinton then than people who are undecided and/or shaky now. But now people are used to the emails now, and Clinton voters know more about their nature now than back when the emails were being leaked-- most importantly, that there was little of substance in the emails, let alone enough stuff that could be used to build a case against her in court. Perhaps the GOP wishes to recreate that uncertainty before the election, but it won't work as well this time because now a fair amount of people are on to what they did or have voted already. A good comparison might be Trump's sexual assault scandal-- if the 10th woman's testimony didn't convince you to say no to Trump, the 11th probably won't make much of a difference to you.

But of course, this all assumes the media will continue covering this incident. TBH, I think this will be forgotten soon.

[Patticus]

11 days is a very short period of time in the real world. However, if I may make use of an old saying, a week is a long time in politics - it only takes a moment to ruin a lifelong career.

Polling numbers usually take about a week to figure any new scandal into the equation, due to their being in the field for days at a time (or longer), so this is going to hit her numbers before election day. How badly will depend on the narrative spun by the media. That said, you're right in saying that most people have made up their minds by now - but things can still go badly for Clinton in the run-up to election day, and she could well be deprived of the landslide victory I've been hoping for.

Anyway, the story is developing:

 

This is going to be a crazy final fortnight.

[Mad Convoy]

Wow, things are getting spiteful and litigous. Judging by these tweets, it seems like this whole thing might have been trumped up, no pun intended.

Scratch what I said earlier. If the DOJ is getting involved, the media is definitely speaking more about this, possibly for all week. I wish Clinton would speak up more on the matter and provide a good speech on the matter. I can see the reasoning behind wanting to dodge the issue-- after all, her team and she may not want to lend credibility to and spread awareness of malicious conspiracy theories about her by addressing them. But we're past the point where ignoring them will keep the theories from proliferating-- at this point, they're proliferating despite being mostly ignored by her and as a result she doesn't control the narrative anymore, assuming she ever did in the first place. And that narrative has turned toxic for her campaign. She needs to speak up and do whatever she can to get her side of the story out there-- heck, if nothing else, her poll numbers tend to spike when she does speak up and get heard. So she should have seen that and tried to make public appearances more common and more publicized in the media.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

I am so happy the FBI have reopened the case. She cannot get away with this.