The General American Politics Thread

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

7 minutes ago, Dizcrybe said:

And what if Trump wins?

Then that's what America has decided.

That's a big if there. I can't see how Trump is going to win this election. I mean, can you?

[Dizcrybe]

34 minutes ago, Ming Ming Kanon said:

Then that's what America has decided.

That's a big if there. I can't see how Trump is going to win this election. I mean, can you?

No.

I was also sure Britain wasn't going to leave the EU, but we all know how accurate that prediction was.

Racism and hatred in America is stronger than you think. Strong enough that if Clinton does win, it'll probably be a close game. From what I've seen on 538, Clinton is just barely pulling ahead of Trump in many states. I dunno how much that's changed since the election, but I still think it's way too soon to act as if her victory is assured.

Actually, I guess I can see how Trump could win, in a way.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Dizcrybe
whoops

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

15 minutes ago, Dizcrybe said:

No.

I was also sure Britain wasn't going to leave the UK, but we all know how accurate that prediction was.

Racism and hatred in America is stronger than you think. Strong enough that if Clinton does win, it'll probably be a close game. From what I've seen on 538, Clinton is just barely pulling ahead of Trump in many states. I dunno how much that's changed since the election, but I still think it's way too soon to act as if her victory is assured.

Actually, I guess I can see how Trump could win, in a way.

(Lol, how can Britain leave the UK? I'm guessing you mean the EU. XD)

I wouldn't class the UK and the US as the same. Different lifestyles, different government, different audiences. Just because Brexit happened, doesn't mean Trump revolution.

There's still time for me to change my mind though. If Trump wins the polls, then as painful as it is, I may have to actually vote. Don't want an increase of racism in my country.

[Tani Coyote]

6 hours ago, Ming Ming Kanon said:

Clinton isn't just likeable for me at the moment. By me voting for her, will leave a mark on my record that I supported her to run the country. And I do not.

The Presidency is bigger than the candidates.

For example, there's always a chance a President might be rendered incapable somehow. You're voting for the Vice President and their Cabinet as much as them.

In addition, the Party platform is the agenda that will be pursued by both the President and Congress. Regardless of Clinton's personal stance on things, she has to work with Congressional Democrats. The same goes for Trump. This is why Clinton is going to have to work with the surge of Social Democrat sentiment that Sanders unleashed, and why Trump is going to have to work with the religious right ideologues who took power at the RNC.

I was a big Sanders supporter, so even though I dislike Clinton, it would be strange for me to not support her, because the platform she will pursue has adopted most of Sanders' ideas. This is coalition politics at work. She gets my vote not because I like her, but because my faction has been included in the political program.

6 hours ago, Ming Ming Kanon said:

I don't have to vote because most likely Clinton will win.

This mentality is part of why we got Bush in 2000.

[-Robin-]

I don't vote for a person because I like them the most. I vote for them because I believe he or she and the respective coalition can lead better than the other one.

 

This isn't a prom king/queen contest.

[Blue Swallow]

 

This is a great conversation on the race and criminal justice section of the debate, with Benjamin Dixon (from "the Benjamin Dixon Show") and Anoa Changa (from "The Way with Anoa"), two people I highly recommend watching. I agree with Ben that no matter how much you don't like Hillary Clinton, it's dangerous to silence criticism of Donald Trump. And I also agree with Anoa about really listening and paying attention to what Hillary is saying, as she's very good at turning a phrase.

And here's a good article on the foreign policy section of the debate, with some quotes from Anoa Changa and Gloria La Riva of the Socialist and Liberation Party.

 

I forgot to say this before, but I was very disappointed that the Dakota access pipeline wasn't discussed at all, though I'm not surprised it wasn't. Its the perfect example of how we still continue to screw over the native people in this country. And it's also a good example about how too many people, and especially corporations, don't care about the environment. It's gotten some attention, but not near enough, The main stream media barely touches on it, And the Sioux people are literally fighting for their lives.

 

@Ming Ming Kanon Look up the third party candidates running, you might find one that shares your views better, and even though they're not likely to win, getting a certain percentage of votes can still help them. They can get federal funding if they make it to 5%. 

[PSI Wind]

How the hell hasn't Trumps numbers dropped or the NRA hasn't said a WORD after his support for Stop & Frisk? THAT LITERALLY TAKES SOMEONES GUN AWAY! Where's the fucking outcry from the gun nuts!?

 

 

Oh, it was aimed mostly at minorities and the law itself was racist? That explains a lot.

[Nepenthe]

The NRA doesn't care about black and brown people's gun rights. They care about promoting a culture of mindless fear and panic so people go out and buy more guns and ammo, and what better way to do that than to stoke racial tensions?

[Patticus]

I like how the NRA is running an anti-Hillary ad campaign that revives the Obama-era fears that all the people's guns will be taken away, despite the absolute legislative impossibility of any such move - made all the more obvious by the "Who gives a fuck?" attitude taken by the NRA, politicians and many others following Sandy Hook. If that didn't move the needle of public and legislative opinion, nothing can.

All Hillary wants is to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, people with histories of domestic abuse, people with anger issues, the suicidally depressed, the mentally ill etc. Guns for all with zero regulations benefits only the gun lobby, while guns for the mentally/emotionally competent users with training, coupled with checks and balances to ensure the public's safety, should not be a controversial view to take.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

It's even more sad that you could tell them that in plain english and the gun nuts will still think you're taking their guns.

Really, these people know better. I'm at the point where I'm thinking they're doing this on purpose.

[Blue Swallow]

2 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

It's even more sad that you could tell them that in plain english and the gun nuts will still think you're taking their guns.

Really, these people know better. I'm at the point where I'm thinking they're doing this on purpose.

They're definitely doing it on purpose, but the people they court do believe anyone who even mentions gun control wants to take their guns away. This is why we need to get money out of politics, because that's what It really comes down to, the NRA, like many, puts profit over people. I wish those that think people want to take away their guns would realize this.

 

[Tani Coyote]

3 hours ago, Blue Swallow said:

 

@Ming Ming Kanon Look up the third party candidates running, you might find one that shares your views better, and even though they're not likely to win, getting a certain percentage of votes can still help them. They can get federal funding if they make it to 5%. 

As I recall, Johnson was actually polling around 4% at one point...

Hmm, I take it back. I would like it if a lot of conservatives decided to back Johnson as a protest against Trump. That way, he can compete in future elections and divide the conservative vote, thus paving the way for Democratic dominance. Let's make the 1912 election happen every election year.

Am I partisan? Of course. This is politics. I'm not required to argue the other side deserves time in office, only that they should be able to voice their opinions.

[Blue Swallow]

For me it's ending the two party system, a lot of America is not being represented by the two major parties. I'm a socialist, and the Democratic Party clearly doesn't like socialism, or really any kind of progressive change. Some progressives have managed to win their primaries, which is great, but the democratic establishment fights them tooth and nail, And we all know the dnc rigged the primaries against Bernie. I'm registered green at the moment, and am hoping they will get to five percent, because there really needs to be progressive competition for 2018 and 2020. And hopefully in the future, other parties too, like the Party for Socalisim and Liberation, and the Workers World Party for example. And as much as I don't agree with libertarianism, those that do deserve to have a winning chance too.

[-Robin-]

>HRC adopted many policies laid forth by Bernie Sanders and will be expected to carry them out, thus turning the DNC's list of objectives into the most progressive checklist ever.

 

>Democratic party is not for "progressive change"

[Blue Swallow]

It's a piece of paper, she doesn't have to do any of things listed on it. Let's not forget Obama ran in 2008 as a progressive who would bring in progressive change, but turned out to be a neoliberal, bringing in crumbs for the 99%, and aid to the 1%. The platform doesn't oppose the TPP, it doesn't oppose fracking, it doesn't oppose Israeli settlements, it doesn't support universal single payer healthcare, it doesn't support free college tuition for all.  Not to mention the Pelosi email, which instructed them to listen to black lives matter, but to not offer support in any way. The record number of night raids and deportation, and the droning of innocent brown people in the Middle East, of which they made up 90% of the targets killed during Hillary's time as Secretary of State. And that's all part of "Obama's legacy", which Hillary has said many times she's going to continue. Both Democrats and Republicans just agreed to give Isreal 38 billion dollars in military aid, and to continue arming and funding Saudi Arabia, which ends up helping terrorists across the Middle East. Breadcrumbs are what Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party are offering, and breadcrumbs are not progressive change. 

 

 

Edit: Protesters are being sprayed with an unknown substance in North Dakota, this is wrong, as the tweet says, boost this!

 

Edited September 28, 2016 by Blue Swallow
Adding something

[Tani Coyote]

In Obama's defense, he was also obstructed for most of his term, and insanely devoted to bipartisan efforts in the first quarter, even though the GOP was already showing signs of wanting to sabotage him at every turn and corner.

Honestly, I think the best we can hope for without instituting Instant Runoff is a divided right-wing vote, with the Democratic primary basically becoming the general election as progressives, socialists and liberals compete for votes.

[Kevin]

Boy that was some debate between Trump and Clinton. In my opinion, Trump was doing fine for the first 30 minutes, and then it went downhill from there. I think his "Being Smart" in regards to not paying taxes and "That's businesses" in regards to people losing jobs comments is going to cost him in the polls and it's going to be interesting to see how the polls shift post-debate considering they were tightening beforehand.

[Patticus]

Very low energy, very weak. No stamina. Sad!

 

2 hours ago, Kevin said:

Boy that was some debate between Trump and Clinton. In my opinion, Trump was doing fine for the first 30 minutes, and then it went downhill from there. I think his "Being Smart" in regards to not paying taxes and "That's businesses" in regards to people losing jobs comments is going to cost him in the polls and it's going to be interesting to see how the polls shift post-debate considering they were tightening beforehand.

Yeah, Trump was fairly sharp for the first half hour - which is just so happens to be the period that most determines who the media says wins the debate. The problem for him is that he unraveled progressively from the halfway point onward, almost handing Clinton the debate on a silver platter by allowing himself to be drawn into this continual cycle of defending himself and letting slip certain now-well-known lines, rather than attacking her.

Apparently, prepping him for the first debate was a real struggle for Bannon, Conway, Guiliani, Adelson and the others present. While he was by all accounts able to reel off some reasonable lines of attack against the Clinton stand-in during those sessions, which were evidently held at one of Trump's private retreats, he kept trying to kick back and relax, trading anecdotes and stories with Adelson and whatnot - just generally not doing his due dilligence as a candidate gearing up for a debate. That he couldn't keep focused on those lines of attack after the first third of the debate proper shows how little he really prepared himself for the event, and how ineffective his prep team was at getting through to him.

Maybe he'll wise up, now that this week's news cycles are filling up fast with "Clinton Beats Trump" headlines, as well as the Machado sexism fiasco that somehow wasn't put to bed on Tuesday morning's breakfast shows, as well as rumors (supported by that video above) that he now might be ill. Maybe he'll actually get his arse in gear and properly prepare for the Town Hall debate on October 9th - even for the last debate, which will be the same format at the first. If he doesn't prepare hardcore (and you know Clinton's team is prepping hard to counter anything he might throw at her), then he's going to be in for a nasty shock, maybe risking being dealt a near knock-out punch at that event.

Clinton, meanwhile, was actually dealt a couple of effective attacks by Trump on Monday night - so she and her team have to shore up her defenses on those subjects before the next debate, because attacks like "You were in government for 26 years, why didn't you do then what you now claim to want to?" will deal her severe damage if she can't effectively parry them and pivot onto the attack. She and her team are smart, though, so I know they're working on that.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Ya know, it's kinda hard to see Trump doing well for a round 2 against someone with 26 years of political experience.

That's like a college freshman going up against a professor with at least three doctorates - may not be impossible, but it damn sure is improbable. Not like that seems to matter given that many people are likely to stick to their preferred candidates regardless of whether or not they win or lose a debate. You really can't argue against the illogical all that well.

[-Robin-]

Good thing the debates are intended to encourage the uncommitted (not undecided) voters to get out and vote on Election Day then.

 

Both candidates know full well they won't persuade a significant block of their opposing base. So they focus on inspiring the rest to vote instead.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

I have 3 friends (1 of them is African-American!) that are Trump voters, 2 Clinton voters (one of them just turned Clinton voter after debate) and the rest (11) are keeping quiet or undecided.

I seriously question my Trump friends, and even though I and several others tried to give out the hard cold facts about Trump, they always disregard it. Saying things like "That was in the past, he has changed!" "BUT TAXES!" "OBAMA SUCKED!" "DEY TOOK ER JEBS!"

@Ming Ming Kanon Look up the third party candidates running, you might find one that shares your views better, and even though they're not likely to win, getting a certain percentage of votes can still help them. They can get federal funding if they make it to 5%. 

I'll definitely look in to that. Don't get me wrong, I do want to vote...it's just that I don't like these two.

Ya know, it's kinda hard to see Trump doing well for a round 2 against someone with 26 years of political experience.

That's like a college freshman going up against a professor with at least three doctorates - may not be impossible, but it damn sure is improbable. Not like that seems to matter given that many people are likely to stick to their preferred candidates regardless of whether or not they win or lose a debate. You really can't argue against the illogical all that well.

While there are sensible voters, there are lots and lots of dumb ones too. If you bring life to that stage like Trump does (even though what he says up there is laughable and lies), these people will eat it up.

His campaign is a success at the moment, like example "Make America Great Again!" is Trump's slogan and he uses everytime. That pumps people up, everytime that slogan has been said. He is clever. Very clever, to a point that even several African-Americans are voting for him.

[Dizcrybe]

1 hour ago, Ming Ming Kanon said:

His campaign is a success at the moment, like example "Make America Great Again!" is Trump's slogan and he uses everytime. That pumps people up, everytime that slogan has been said. He is clever. Very clever, to a point that even several African-Americans are voting for him.

I think it's less that he's clever, and more that his supporters are suckers.

As for black Trump supporters... yeah. I have opinions about them.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

His campaign is a success at the moment, like example "Make America Great Again!" is Trump's slogan and he uses everytime. That pumps people up, everytime that slogan has been said. He is clever. Very clever, to a point that even several African-Americans are voting for him.

I think it's less that he's clever, and more that his supporters are suckers.

As for black Trump supporters... yeah. I have opinions about them.

Well, I mean that - he's clever to make them suckers.

For those African American Trump supporters, I just don't understand them. I don't have bad opinions about them, but I just don't understand them. It's bizarre. Trump is racist to your kind, yet you support him. Mind blowing. Is it because they hate Clinton so much or something?

[Dizcrybe]

Just now, Ming Ming Kanon said:

Well, I mean that - he's clever to make them suckers.

For those African American Trump supporters, I just don't understand them. I don't have bad opinions about them, but I just don't understand them. It's bizarre. Trump is racist to your kind, yet you support him. Mind blowing. Is it because they hate Clinton so much or something?

I certainly have bad opinions about them. I also have a few hypotheses as to why they support Trump, but I won't get into those.

[Baconjack]

7 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Ya know, it's kinda hard to see Trump doing well for a round 2 against someone with 26 years of political experience.

That's like a college freshman going up against a professor with at least three doctorates - may not be impossible, but it damn sure is improbable. Not like that seems to matter given that many people are likely to stick to their preferred candidates regardless of whether or not they win or lose a debate. You really can't argue against the illogical all that well.

If all the voters were smart, then that argument would be valid. But as most people know, there are many, many dumb voters. The Washington Post did an analysis of all 50 US States, ranked by intelligence. Conveniently enough, 8 out of the 10 least intelligent states are located in the GOP's heartland in the Deep South, with the other two being very liberal Hawaii and moderate Nevada. With the exception of Virginia, Missouri, Kansas and South Dakota, the majority of the GOP-leaning states (the South and the Mountain States + Alaska) are located at the bottom 50% of this analysis, with the heavily Democratic states of Massachusetts and Vermont located at the top 20% of the analysis. Coincidence?