The General American Politics Thread

[Tani Coyote]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307132-dems-consider-co-chairs-to-lead-dnc

The idea of co-chairs for the DNC is being floated around, it seems. Ellison remains the frontrunner, but I think it would really be best for him to be the public face of the Party, while Dean runs the day to day affairs. I would feel a lot more confident about 2018 if Dean is part of the midterm team, given his role in flipping so many of the seats up for grabs to the Democrats in the first place.

 

2 hours ago, KHCast said:

It is interesting how people raised in the "racist areas" of the country seem to be more allowed to judge and say those people are racist, almost like they get a pass, but people in more progressive or educated areas doing the same is a bad thing. I mean, I guess liberal whites tend to come off as pompous and devaluing and generalizing of those groups more than those that have lived there? Just guessing on that, but I see more respect and room to talk from someone from the Deep South that left and has admitted the people they know are in face ignorant, or racist, or hateful.

Well no, I'd say in both cases it's a disingenuous move. Racism is a spectrum, but most people only conceive it as the most extreme side of it. This is why it's bad policy to use the term outside safe zones (i.e. a place where everyone's academic or in agreement, but at that point there's not much discussion to be had).

On the other hand, if a person is KKK-style racist, calling them racist doesn't hurt much. They're not the ones that need to be flipped.

[Patticus]

Well hot diggity dog, the DNC co-chair idea is being considered! I think it'd be great; the experience and know-how of Dean, combined with the left-leaning populism and youthful exuberance of Ellison. If that's who ends up in the positions. If they go with having co-chairs at all.

In other news, Nancy Pelosi has clung onto her position as House Minority Leader, but the emerging split between those who support her and those who don't (tellingly, half her caucus wasn't there when she won the House Majority Leader and Speaker roles) is portentous indeed - if 2018 or 2020 don't go very damn well, her position will quickly become untenable.

[Tani Coyote]

It's times like this I admire Parliamentary government. A lot of times, a party leader will concede that the time has come for new leadership, and step down.

Here? Politicians just seem to cling onto posts for as long as possible until they're either forced out or a better office opens up.

In other words: if Pelosi isn't winning by landslides, she really needs to step down and let there be a fresh face. The Democrats need to draw in as many people as possible.

[Patticus]

It's rare in the British parliamentary system for a party leader to remain in place after an election defeat, particularly one as stinging as this one. Defeats typically reveal the shortcomings of the losing side, and the leader who lead everyone to defeat steps down or quits entirely so that someone untainted by defeat can step up. It's not a tactic that works every time, as opposition parties oftentimes will go through several leaders before hitting upon a winner. If Pelosi is unwilling to concede that her tactics aren't effective any more, I fear for the House Democrats' near term future. But she is getting on in age, so maybe she'd prefer to retire gracefully and of her own volition, rather than be kicked out by some baby-faced newbie?
 

A thought on the Electoral College, which will be voting (and discussed here once more) next week IIRC, amid swirling rumors of an unprecedented number of Faithless Electors: Donald Trump said that if the winner were decided by the popular vote, he would have campaigned differently. If we completely get rid of the EC, the campaign style of every political candidate will immediately and radically alter - overt populism and ideological pandering will become much more normalized, at the expense of practicality and reality. In that event, I would really fear for the future of American democracy, given just how easily manipulated people are by fake news and demagoguery.

Tangent: Over the course of the election, I wasn't surprised (but was still bitterly disappointed) that Sanders lost the primaries. Over the following months, I came around to genuinely liking Hillary Clinton. A populist, charismatic team with Clinton's knack for thorough, detailed and practical policies would be fantastic, if such a thing is even possible. The Ellison/Dean DNC co-chair prospect holds this kind of potential.

But, I digress. I think we should keep the EC, but its members shouldn't be bound to vote for a particular candidate by state laws, as they are now. Alexander Hamilton originally envisioned it to be a contemplative body, a last line of defense against unfit presidents elected by popular vote, so I think we could do a lot worse than returning it to that state.

[Tani Coyote]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/29/pope-francis-urges-world-leaders-not-to-delay-climate-change-efforts/?utm_campaign=8c7069bb67-cb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Daily Carbon Briefing&utm_term=.cce442520dd1

It is truly a fine freaking day when the world's leading theocrat is telling leaders - especially Trump - "hey guys if you could stop ignoring science that would be awesome."

Sure, Trump has made a slight reversal in that there may be "some" human impact on climate change, but it says a lot when the Pope has to step in on the discussion.

Trump remains one of the most terrifying President-elects ever simply by merit of us not knowing what policies he'll actually propose once formally elected and inaugurated.

[Patticus]

While Trump did offer a ray of hope with his statement that there may be "some" human impact on climate change, this is a man who believes and spouts the views of the last person who gives him any advice... and his senior staff appear to be solidly in the climate skeptic/denier camp. Even if he has a team of 30 other advisers, the fact that the deniers are right there by his office is a very ominous sign.

[Tani Coyote]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-29/fbi-and-nsa-poised-to-gain-new-surveillance-powers-under-trump?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

Oh boy oh boy.

Sessions and Pompeo are pushing for expanded surveillance power for the FBI and CIA, respectively. Sessions wants it so the FBI can search thousands or even millions of computers with the approval of a single judge, while Pompeo wants the ability to freely collect data like telephone calls.

Good news: Republicans like Rand Paul are standing in the way of the proposal. Once more, the libertarian streak of the GOP is our lifeline starting in January.

[Patticus]

Sounds a bit like the American equivalent of Britain's so-called "Snooper's Charter" bill, which was just passed into law. Apparently the Food Standards Agency really needs to know about all the naughty things people look at on the internet these days. I wish I was joking.

Privacy is really going to take a beating these next few years. I can only hope that the Democrats take a strong stand against this crap, because no matter how innocent we all may or may not be, privacy is a basic civil liberty that should be valued and held in high regard - not something to be torn asunder as if it were nothing.

[Candescence]

6 hours ago, Patticus said:

It's rare in the British parliamentary system for a party leader to remain in place after an election defeat, particularly one as stinging as this one. Defeats typically reveal the shortcomings of the losing side, and the leader who lead everyone to defeat steps down or quits entirely so that someone untainted by defeat can step up. It's not a tactic that works every time, as opposition parties oftentimes will go through several leaders before hitting upon a winner.

There is an exception to this rule - when the ruling government isn't defeated, but has lost so much of the vote that a hung parliament occurs or almost occurs. This has happened twice over here in Australia, the 2010 election saw Julia Gillard establish a minority government while the Liberal/National Coalition kept Tony Abbot as leader, and the recent election this year saw a near-defeat for Malcom Turnbull's government but not quite enough to cause a hung parliament, but Turnbull's inability to stem the bleeding on the popularity of his party and his own personal popularity has allowed Bill Shorten to stay on as opposition leader.

Mind you, Australia is also infamous for going through four prime ministers in five years due to the PM being booted by their own party, so we're a bit odd like that.

[Mad Convoy]

18 hours ago, Noelgilvie said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-29/fbi-and-nsa-poised-to-gain-new-surveillance-powers-under-trump?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

Oh boy oh boy.

Sessions and Pompeo are pushing for expanded surveillance power for the FBI and CIA, respectively. Sessions wants it so the FBI can search thousands or even millions of computers with the approval of a single judge, while Pompeo wants the ability to freely collect data like telephone calls.

Good news: Republicans like Rand Paul are standing in the way of the proposal. Once more, the libertarian streak of the GOP is our lifeline starting in January.

Oy... And considering that one person that Trump is considering for secretary of state, David Petraeus, has actually been caught and was disgraced for mishandling confidential information, that's really worrying. http://ktla.com/2016/11/28/petraeus-is-problematic-pick-for-trump-due-to-his-handling-of-classified-material-rand-paul/

But yeah, it seems like if Rand Paul is any indication, the GOP is firmly against the more extreme policies proposed by Trump and his cabinet. The Republican party, although less vocal about it now, is still really split on Trump, and while it wasn't enough of a split to cost him the election, it may well be enough to cost him his policies. Plus the Democrats are going to fight really hard against him-- especially Bernie Sanders, who actually has a pretty strong following and influence amongst Trump's supporters. Speaking of which, many of his supporters aren't pleased with his decisions right now and he hasn't even put any plans into action-- my feeling is that they'll be even less happy when he actually tries to do stuff or continues to not do stuff that he promised. Or we still have the option of Trump flip-flopping so much, as he is doing right now, that his government is completely inefficient and his measures never make a lot of progress because he's terribly indecisive.

(Which, now that I think of it, gives some insight into why so many of his businesses have failed as well. It could have less to do with his poor money management but rather his lack of decisive, clear-headed decision-making in response to unexpected events or in dealing with areas which he lacks immediate familiarity, both of which are inevitable for any businessmen looking to make it big long term.)

Because of all this, however, there's a chance we might bear witness to the rare event of Republican and Democrats cooperating and compromising to defeat a common foe. It would be a twist of fate for sure if Trump's promises of unity in Congress and the country actually came true, but only because people dislike him so much that they're willing to set aside their personal grievances with each other to band together against him.

But as you said, we don't know what kind of policies Trump will put forward or how people will react. While I've certainly guessed in the past, as of now I am still uncertain on what Trump really stands for and wants for this country-- heck, considering how unpredictable he is, he could suddenly reverse all his policies and promises the moment the coast is clear and he completes the transition from President-Elect to bona fide President, or suddenly return to trying to fulfill all his promises after the same transition. The only certainty right now is uncertainty.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

6 hours ago, Mad Convoy said:

Speaking of which, many of his supporters aren't pleased with his decisions right now

There is not enough "I fucking told you so" that democrats can throw at this. It would reach to infinity and beyond.

[Tani Coyote]

That's quite a useful blog, since I was pondering how his supporters were feeling on his backtracking on just about every major policy point besides infrastructure.

Memories are short, though, so I assume many of them will fall back in line for the re-election campaign.

[Patticus]

47 minutes ago, Noelgilvie said:

That's quite a useful blog, since I was pondering how his supporters were feeling on his backtracking on just about every major policy point besides infrastructure.

Memories are short, though, so I assume many of them will fall back in line for the re-election campaign.

Depending on his approval ratings at the time, the main group to watch going into the 2020 election campaign could well be the disaffected no and blue collar voters who put Trump in the White House by such razor thin margins the first time. He made some impossible promises during the election campaign - "draining the swamp" and bringing back traditional manufacturing en masse being just two, which should point toward heavy disapproval.

But as you say, memories are short, so it remains to be seen how people are going to feel about his Goldman Sachs-filled administration down the line, and that will probably depend on how well the Democrats can keep up their drum beat of outrage, headline-grabbing take-downs and the like.

[KHCast]

Trevor Noah destroyed Tomi Lahren

 

Holy shit, the crap she is saying and one sided easily debunked "facts", justifications and "statistics" throughout this thing. And on top of that, she has the ever prominent, "you're in America, be grateful" mentality. And she doesn't seem to understand the general point of a protest, and that radical individuals =/= the whole.

 

Privileged white straight conservative woman here that can't put herself in other people's shoes.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I mean, would we really have expected much from Tomi Lahren of all people? She's basically the next-gen version of Ann Coulter.

[Patticus]

16 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

I mean, would we really have expected much from Tomi Lahren of all people? She's basically the next-gen version of Ann Coulter.

And yet somehow, she speaks for millions of Americans who felt disenfranchised and marginalized by the "establishment" of both parties. Quite how an administration of billionaires with deep establishment connections is supposed to be any less establishment-y than any other possible administration is quite beyond me, though.

[KHCast]

She says she's not racist, but honestly it seems more like she means she's not "traditionally" racist. Cause many of her stances seem to have sprinkles of entitlement, systematic racial and oppressive ideologies, and a lack of general understanding of certain issues and why they're issues, and she seems to have a tendency to always defend in the name of nationalism even if that means ignoring the "small problems people whine and most about" she seems to elegantly put it. She genuinely doesn't see the harm in the shit she's spouting, which is probably MORE dangerous than a clear as day racist that admits they are. She doesn't want to listen, and doesn't want to put herself in someone else's position(cause she's comfortable with the white life she's clearly livin). She essentially wants her cake and to eat. Say she's not racist and that she's for a better America putting her in a positive light, but get pissy and rant when people not like her speak out about the country and its glaring large issues inequalities and imperfections. And if she speaks for millions of whites, and specifically the middle of the country, and they honestly do back her and agree, well, I know racist, entitled, ignorant, and privileged and other "mean words" won't change minds or hearts on their side, but I'm gonna call it as I see it. She asks for people to point out where the oppression of blacks is. That in itself even if she actually doesn't know, is telling.

[KHCast]

I can't for the life of me understand how middle and low class Americans that are in the financial turmoil can defend the upper class and say they are doing their fair share. Not like the financial situations opens up much room for lower and middle class to pay more taxes anyway. Meanwhile most of that wealth in the 1% isn't even being used, and they aren't being financially damaged by the taxes as they stand in notable ways. So the idea of increasing the tax on them I don't see how that's "unfair" or "avoiding the real problem". And how often in history have the wealthy equally in America helped the middle and lower class by distributing the wealth?

[SenEDDtor Missile]

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

I can't for the life of me understand how middle and low class Americans that are in the financial turmoil can defend the upper class and say they are doing their fair share. Not like the financial situations opens up much room for lower and middle class to pay more taxes anyway. Meanwhile most of that wealth in the 1% isn't even being used, and they aren't being financially damaged by the taxes as they stand in notable ways. So the idea of increasing the tax on them I don't see how that's "unfair" or "avoiding the real problem". And how often in history have the wealthy equally in America helped the middle and lower class by distributing the wealth?

They want to be millionaires, so they refuse to screw over their future positions as rich assholes even if reality makes it impossible and the current elite salivate at the notion of turning everyone not elite into slave labor.

[Tani Coyote]

If society collapses, the poor man will still have most of his assets, as all he really has is his home and family. The rich man? He has his home and family, but everything else evaporates without the military and police power of the state to enforce contracts.

It is perfectly just to squeeze the wealthy. They are the ones who benefit the most from society.

80% seems like a lot, but they still have a crapload more where that came from. That is to say nothing of their income from wealth. Plus, a good chunk of their tax money will come back to them; the government has to spend it, which will generate the economic activity that makes many of them wealthy in the first place. Also, that statistic is misleading: the rich pay 80% of the income tax generated, not 80% of their own income. Again, there is still plenty to squeeze out of them.

Some would say the poor and middle class benefit from society as well. But of course they do. Here's the thing though: if society collapses, we can create a new one without the formerly rich people. Good luck to the rich people in creating a society without the poor and middle class, though.

In a capitalist state, the government exists to benefit the wealthy. They should pay for pretty much all of its upkeep. Otherwise, we have fair grounds to confiscate everything rather than most.

Suddenly it doesn't seem like such a bad deal, does it?

[Mad Convoy]

I know there's a quote I like, but I can't remember what it is. It goes something like "When assessing an area, look to how the lowest rungs of society are treated above all else." It basically means that how the poor are treated says more about an area than how the rich are treated in terms of how good of a living place it is-- because while the rich will usually have it pretty good and be able to make economic contributions (unless the economy has collapsed to the point where money is largely worthless- in which case, there will be little to no rich people in the first place), the treatment of the poor reflects how well society is really doing as well as much people really care about those that don't confer any additions to social status by association or can't afford to pay others in lots of money or lavish gifts. And on that level, I am kind of disappointed in America. There's a lot of care and a lot of people willing to help, but yet at the same time, so much ignorance and apathy while stems from lack of exposure from nearly all but some of the least sympathetic examples of poor people available. I know people in my area would want to help if they knew that it mattered, but even with the commute to the cities that many take for work, it still seems that everybody lives in a bubble, so they have limited knowledge of what it means to be poor or have lived here long enough in prosperity that they've forgotten what its really like to be in the lower rungs. I wish that would change, but the change starts with me, so I'm going to be on the look-out for charity opportunities to take advantage of.

Not to mention that while trickle-down seldom if ever works, there is such a thing as a trickle-up effect, where improving the living and employment standards of the poor allows people to put more money into circulation. It also allows more people to do productive, efficient work, after all, people generally work with more efficiency and focus when they have good meals regularly, good sleep patterns, a clean, safe living and work environment, and above all else less reason for stress. This in turn benefits the middle classes as they'll be able to reap the benefits of a better workforce through good quality products that get finished quicker, allowing them a few extra comforts and more fun things like vacations that makes them happy, and the rich people get richer because they have access to more workers who are producing higher quality goods that can be sold for a higher price because people can afford more.

Or in short, trickle down doesn't work because it expects people who are already contributing to the economy to contribute in areas they don't typically contribute by throwing money at them and the poor to fight for themselves for stuff that should be a given like regular meals, but trickle up helps introduce people who haven't been able to contribute much to contribute to areas that matter to them, which are often quite different from the more affluent's areas of contributions and yet are nonetheless important.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/30/republicans-suddenly-discover-that-obamacare-repeal-might-not-be-so-awesome-after-all/?postshare=8761480607595488&tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.d598e2cc1be3#comments

"My god, you mean that Obamacare actually might get repealed!? But all our plans and propaganda operated under the assumption that it was sticking around forever! We have voters who actually need Medicare and they'll really dislike us if we don't do something!"

"Eh, let's just repeal it and maybe replace it later on. What's this thing about thinking about a proper replacement before you remove a government program instead of thinking about it after the deed is done again?"

But yeah, seriously, Republicans are having a crisis right now as Obamacare actually has a good chance of being repealed. As you might expect, they never planned for this-- they had assumed that it would just be used for propaganda, as a way of inventing a narrative about Democrat tyranny, and that it was a lost cause to repeal. Besides, if a traditional Republican got into the presidency, he'd probably drop the repealing or strategically time proposals regarding a repeal to moments where he wouldn't be likely to actually win out, because the idea of the repeal had ceased to be useful for him. But Trump is not traditional, and right now one of his cabinet, Price, wants to go through with the repeal, advice Trump is likely to take if Price happens to be the last person Trump has spoken to before drafting any laws. And there's an expectation to the GOP that they'll be happy with this development, and go through with their old promises, even though in reality they aren't happy at all because if a repeal makes it through they'll be apt to lose the anti-Obamacare argument as a viable tool, possibly for good if the Democrats are on the ball in terms of reminding the populace how disastrous the repeal was. Keep in mind, a lot of Republican voters are people who have been kept ignorant by being fed false information for years-- and many are disaffected poor people who need Obamacare to get the medical care they need, even if they don't realize it now. They all can, and some will, see their loyalty and trust being rewarded by immediately obvious inferior healthcare as a serious betrayal, and for many, that's all they need to stop blindly accepting the Kool-Aid and start looking into their candidates. So the speculation is that the GOP plans on doing is going through with the repeal, then making claims of some kind of replacement. If they're looking to get quick voter approval and assuage the concerns of non-Republicans, the so-called replacement will actually not be all that different than Obamacare (perhaps similar to Romneycare or that other government health service the Republicans tried to pass in the 90s). But if they're feeling particularly manipulative, what they might do is promise a replacement but never actually come up with one, or only bring it up when its not likely to pass (possibly with some ridiculous or unpopular terms to turn voters off), stringing its voters along on false promises of good replacements that never come well until people who aren't Republicans take Congress and/or the Presidency, anyway, but that's not in two years at least.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

+1 to the "I fucking told you so crowd."

See what throwing tantrums like 5 year olds gets you instead of acting like adults, GOP? All of this comes to bite you in the ass.

[Patticus]

Howard Dean has dropped out of the race for the position of DNC chair, leaving just three contestants - Chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party Raymond Buckley, and South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jaime Harrison. It's pretty likely that others will come forward before the vote in February.

I still hold out hope for co-chairs, but without Dean it may not work near so well.

[KHCast]

Kinda following my comment on poor people and what others have said, this is an interesting piece I think you guys should read.

 

 

[Tornado]

On 11/29/2016 at 10:50 PM, Mad Convoy said:

  Hide contents

I'd be careful with that. As with all wars, the reasoning to enter was a lot more complicated than "because it affects white people now". For one, in Hitler's eyes, he was doing a genocide against every race except for white people and the Japanese and, as you can tell, the US was still morally against Hitler. Hitler's rise to power also went ignored by Americans due to the continued influence of isolationism keeping Americans from staying up to date on German politics-- not that the American people would have cared as it was seen as not my country, not my problem and it was assumed by the US government that the Weimar Republic would eventually find its footing as the general belief was that all fallen dictatorships would tend to democracy.

 

To add on to this, early in Hitler times Germany was far worse off than the United States has ever been by a huge margin, so when the Nazis started giving plausible impressions that the country was turning around in the late 1930s there wasn't much indication to the common person in America that anything in Germany was actually going wrong. Couple that with how many Americans who had caught whiffs of trouble later in the decade being of the opinion that it is a European matter for Europeans to solve. Couple that with how you have a ton of second or third generation immigrants from European countries who may not have been terribly sympathetic to the countries Germany was telling to go fuck themselves (and based on what some of those countries had been doing before Hitler kicked the door in they wouldn't have been horrifically off base either). And the stuff happening in Asia that essentially led directly into the Pacific front? No one really gave a shit how many of "those people" killed each other, in America or in Europe.

 

It really wasn't until Paris fell that public opinion started looking back outward towards getting involved (the US government quickly, but quietly, established that if Germany so much as scared the captain of a US ship with one of their submarines that the US would intervene directly; and started basically giving away money and military equipment to Britain and Australia); and it wasn't until Pearl Harbor that the US government could actually do something without going under the table. And it wasn't until long after that that the US public learned what Hitler had really been up to within Germany's borders, since it took a while for the US government to find proof of the things they suspected were occurring.