Jump to content
Awoo.

The General American Politics Thread


turbojet

Recommended Posts

They can hinder progress, yes, but they can't undo it (at least not permanently). In many ways, we have made progress-- we elected a black president into power, there's a clear path for non-whites to join the military that a racist attorney general couldn't completely destroy even if he wanted to, and much as the loud minority would like to deny it, there's been a consistently steady gravitation towards the idea of cooperating with foreign countries rather than trying to fight or dominate them. The majority of the changes, however, have been in the general population rather than the government. In spite of what a vocal minority is saying, its generally considered a social sin to say something deemed racist, most people support expanding welfare to help those of all races instead of helping just poor white people or doing away with it altogether, most people don't consciously believe that Arabian people are inherently evil or out to get us somehow, most people approve of immigration, and stereotypes are steadily fading. Its just that that minority of people that do believe those things and want being not-racist to be stigmatized again instead of the other way around have somehow gotten hold of the right segments of the government to influence the creation of racist laws.

And yes, I do acknowledge that America still has a lot of work to do on the issue of race. We need to end that racists' grip on the government, we need to stop being apathetic to those outside of our groups (which I feel is a much more predominant issue in American communities than active racism), and I'm sure there's lots of other areas that need work. But we need to also be able to acknowledge and appreciate the progress made so that we can focus our energies to the areas that still need to be addressed-- because if we don't, and I have seen this happen many, many times, people only hear recommendations to do and think things they're already doing and thinking and thus never consider or apply the changes that they actually need to make in terms of voting patterns, behavior, sympathy, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh.

Even after Bannon's appointment I was still willing to give this Presidency the benefit of the doubt but seeing these positions... nope. Just nope.

I wasn't expecting any huge social justice initiative, but seeing a KKK-sympathizer as Attorney General indicates we're liable to see a reactionary Justice Department. I was hoping we could at least get a conservative one.

We are really banking on moderate Republicans to shut this shit down come January.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.

The somewhat good news is that Sessions's racism has not gone unnoticed or uncriticized-- racism will definitely be a looming shadow over him, undoubtedly brought up by his critics shortly before the vote, as Congress decides if he gets to be in the Cabinet or not. The question is-- will it be enough to convince those he's affiliated with over his years of being the senator of Alabama to not support him? And if he is rejected, will the people Trump proposes to replace him with be any better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/306495-trumps-nominees-may-face-roadblocks

Praise the powers that be.

Senators like Rand Paul are heavily scrutinizing several of the nominees. There are several other moderates, and provided the Democrats stay party line, they will end up sinking Trump's less savory picks.

The great news is a lot of nominees have to be approved by the Senate committees before reaching the floor. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for example, has to approve nominees to the State Department, and will be divided 10-9 between the GOP and Democrats. This means that, barring a Democrat breaking ranks, someone like Rand Paul can singlehandedly block aggressive people from being voted on as Secretary.

With how close the Senate is, a lot of the committees are only narrowly Republican. This means that those moderate Republicans really are our last defense, provided the Democrats can maintain party unity.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But where there is good news, there must also be bad news.

Quote

Kris Kobach, the extremely controversial Kansas secretary of state, has been named to Donald Trump's transition team. 

[...]

Why should this terrify you? Because Donald Trump has just named one of the most racist politicians in all of America to his transition team. Kris Kobach was the architect of the most racist law in modern American history. SB 1070 passed in Arizona in 2010. What did it mean? If you have brown skin or an accent, police had a right to stop you, detain you and demand you prove your citizenship. 

If the Senate/whoever can't block this guy or other like him on Trump's team, we're done for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mad Convoy said:

They can hinder progress, yes, but they can't undo it (at least not permanently). In many ways, we have made progress-- we elected a black president into power, there's a clear path for non-whites to join the military that a racist attorney general couldn't completely destroy even if he wanted to, and much as the loud minority would like to deny it, there's been a consistently steady gravitation towards the idea of cooperating with foreign countries rather than trying to fight or dominate them. The majority of the changes, however, have been in the general population rather than the government. In spite of what a vocal minority is saying, its generally considered a social sin to say something deemed racist, most people support expanding welfare to help those of all races instead of helping just poor white people or doing away with it altogether, most people don't consciously believe that Arabian people are inherently evil or out to get us somehow, most people approve of immigration, and stereotypes are steadily fading. Its just that that minority of people that do believe those things and want being not-racist to be stigmatized again instead of the other way around have somehow gotten hold of the right segments of the government to influence the creation of racist laws.

And yes, I do acknowledge that America still has a lot of work to do on the issue of race. We need to end that racists' grip on the government, we need to stop being apathetic to those outside of our groups (which I feel is a much more predominant issue in American communities than active racism), and I'm sure there's lots of other areas that need work. But we need to also be able to acknowledge and appreciate the progress made so that we can focus our energies to the areas that still need to be addressed-- because if we don't, and I have seen this happen many, many times, people only hear recommendations to do and think things they're already doing and thinking and thus never consider or apply the changes that they actually need to make in terms of voting patterns, behavior, sympathy, etc.

active racism isn't the issue anymore. Casual, economic racism however are large issues white people still struggle with. Making progress isn't reason enough to go "there's no actual racism outside small groups that need to be brought up to discuss". Again some of trumps big selling points were inherent racist policies, generalizations and promises that got the white vote because it benefited them. And many excused the blatant racism being shown because of "the greater good". It's not a small group that keeps things shit for minorities in many ways, despite the progress we've made. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/17/6-senate-republicans-who-could-make-life-very-difficult-for-donald-trump/

These are the people we need to fall back on for damage control these next 4 years.

Trump's ego making him shut out rival parts of the GOP will likely be a blessing. The Senators described here were opposed to his nomination, and so Trump's interest in cronyism is likely to make enemies of them.

The Judiciary Committee sits 11-9 between Republicans and Democrats. The Judiciary does not technically have the power to block nominees for consideration but if it doesn't send a nominee to the Senate than it can effectively do so. The Judiciary reviews both the Attorney General and court nominees.

Senator Flake has voted yes on making it a crime to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, so there's one hope spot.

While Chairman Grassley has moderate views on some issues like healthcare, Civil Rights is not one of them.

It will likely fall to the wider Senate to keep someone like Sessions from assuming office.

46 minutes ago, Dizcrybe said:

But where there is good news, there must also be bad news.

If the Senate/whoever can't block this guy or other like him on Trump's team, we're done for.

The good news is our strong federalism limits federal power.

At the end of the day, the feds simply don't have the manpower to force ludicrous policies on the states. If liberal states don't want to play ball, the federal government has two options for coercion: cutting funding to the states or military invasion. Given how several Republican Senators are from liberal-leaning states, I don't think a funding motion will get too far. Plus it sets the disastrous trend towards resumption of the spoils system, as now when the Democrats take back power, they will seek to cut funding to the Republican states. This isn't even considering the power in committees.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://ssl.capwiz.com/aclu/scorecard.xc?chamber=S&session=114&votescorecard=true

ACLU scorecards for Senators by state with Party affiliation.

Unsurprisingly, high scores are skewed towards Democrats, with only about two having poor scores. On the flipside, almost all Republicans have low scores, though some have fairly excellent ones.

Moderate GOP Senators (higher than 50%) are Mike Lee (Utah), Dean Heller (Nevada), Steve Daines (Montana), Cory Gardner (Colorado), and Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan (Alaska). There are a few more in the 30-40% range, who can be seen as fallbacks.

As we can see, we are quite blessed to have a libertarian streak within the GOP as it provides a last barrier against reactionary insanity. What's more, only one of these Senators (Lee) is sitting on the Judiciary Committee that chose to block Garland's nomination. So there is some serious hope for bipartisanship and a few of them disagreeing to Trump's picks if they don't have decent Civil Rights records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KHCast said:

active racism isn't the issue anymore. Casual, economic racism however are large issues white people still struggle with. Making progress isn't reason enough to go "there's no actual racism outside small groups that need to be brought up to discuss". Again some of trumps big selling points were inherent racist policies, generalizations and promises that got the white vote because it benefited them. And many excused the blatant racism being shown because of "the greater good". It's not a small group that keeps things shit for minorities in many ways, despite the progress we've made. 

That was actually kind of the point I'm getting at. We have made a lot of progress in the active racism department-- haven't completely eradicated it but we're getting there-- and I feel that should be acknowledged, but that doesn't mean that America doesn't still have a long way to go in terms of how it handles racism. However, while it certainly takes multiple groups, I do think its that small group that does cause the most issues. After all, it was them that started all that false propaganda about Hilary that motivated a lot of white voters not to trust her or see her as the greater of two evils, them that reminded people that they should fight competing races* instead of wallow in their economic slump induced misery, and that spread a campaign of voter intimidation. The others went along with it-- and that's certainly bad-- but its that small group that got it started and kept adding fuel.

*Yes, I am aware that there is no such thing as competing races. Obviously Mexicans, Chinese, et. al. aren't trying to take our jobs. But try telling that to somebody who got laid off his manufacturing or farming job because of outsourcing or migrant workers-- those people want a scapegoat and by god they are going to find one even if they have to make one up. (This misconception and mentality seriously needs to be addressed too.)

----

3 hours ago, Noelgilvie said:

At the end of the day, the feds simply don't have the manpower to force ludicrous policies on the states. If liberal states don't want to play ball, the federal government has two options for coercion: cutting funding to the states or military invasion. Given how several Republican Senators are from liberal-leaning states, I don't think a funding motion will get too far. Plus it sets the disastrous trend towards resumption of the spoils system, as now when the Democrats take back power, they will seek to cut funding to the Republican states. This isn't even considering the power in committees.

I do take some comfort in the fact that my state would be one of those to oppose those policies-- but the fact that there are states like Alabama or possibly Arizona that totally would go along with those policies is still really worrying for me as I do really care about people outside my state. I would hope that if push came to shove and the federal government did try to force a racist, homophobic, etc. policy, those liberal states would sue the crap out the government (as they would be completely justified in doing) which would hopefully provide a ripple effect in getting the policy protested and removed.

The sad thing is though, I wouldn't put it past the Republicans to try to defund uncooperative states as US politicians in general tend to be very short-sighted and petty. Besides maybe requiring some raised taxes, my area's economy is actually strong enough to withstand such a defunding (helped by its strong trade with foreign countries, who may well be sympathetic if they catch wind of the defunding and try to help out), so I doubt politicians here would bend-- but for smaller, poorer areas, a cut budget could be utterly devastating. Same goes for the Republican states if the Republicans did indeed set a bad precedent of defunding the opposition. Luckily, we can definitely rule out a military invasion as, while there's a rare chance the federal government will threaten or insinuate such, most of our leaders respect the principles of democracy enough not to actually try such a dictator-like move.

The bright side is, the streak of pettiness can work in our favor since it means that the Republicans will feel motivated to oppose Trump if he shuts them out or otherwise exerts his will over their desires-- even if its only for the reasoning of "He's rude and doesn't agree with me!" rather than a genuine desire for social justice. Of course, the future is still up in the air, but all is not yet lost.

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

538 has put up an interesting piece on what the Democrats could and should do, now that the election dust is clearing:

It's of interest because they don't believe a total makeover is required for the party or the message. Rather, the general ideas about where they should go from here are centered around focusing on hammering out the same economic message that they had before, which was mistakenly put on the back burner in favor of 24/7 Trump criticism; there's possibly a bit of message tweaking to be done, and some strong, charismatic young talent should be found and brought forth to deliver it. And there's the need to broaden the 'big tent' to include all the white folks ignored by the Clinton campaign, allowing red state Democratic leaders to appeal to their constituents with populist economic messages (using Bill de Blasio' mayoral campaign as a model, I hear), while they work with Trump on projects they agree with, like infrastructure. Dat bipartisanship - even Sanders is on-board that train.

Also mentioned is the fact that the pendulum of power swings back and forth between the two parties regularly (sometimes quite quickly), so even if one party is at a low ebb in year x, in year y they could very easily be in the ascendance. The GOP has spent the last 8 years accumulating an enormous amount of power while out of the White House. It's what election losers do: they regain their power while the other team takes all kinds of heat, and then they come charging back in 4, 8 or 12 years' time. Americans as a people seem to be pretty untrusting of authority, which seems to make them root more for whichever party is not in power. That's not to say that the GOP can happily ignore the demographic changes underway, though - not for long, anyway.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-should-democrats-do-now/

  • Thumbs Up 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Mad Convoy said:

I do take some comfort in the fact that my state would be one of those to oppose those policies-- but the fact that there are states like Alabama or possibly Arizona that totally would go along with those policies is still really worrying for me as I do really care about people outside my state. I would hope that if push came to shove and the federal government did try to force a racist, homophobic, etc. policy, those liberal states would sue the crap out the government (as they would be completely justified in doing) which would hopefully provide a ripple effect in getting the policy protested and removed.

On the other hand, that means little if the Attorney General and SCOTUS are both far right.

We can only cross our fingers the moderate GOP Senators do their part to keep the worst elements of the Trump Presidency from succeeding.

18 hours ago, Mad Convoy said:

The sad thing is though, I wouldn't put it past the Republicans to try to defund uncooperative states as US politicians in general tend to be very short-sighted and petty. 

It would certainly be interesting to see how such a move would affect local politics. The federal GOP might consider cutting funds to California a good idea, but the local and state Republicans would no doubt be terrified. If they're associated with the Party that plunges the state into a crisis...

18 hours ago, Mad Convoy said:

The bright side is, the streak of pettiness can work in our favor since it means that the Republicans will feel motivated to oppose Trump if he shuts them out or otherwise exerts his will over their desires-- even if its only for the reasoning of "He's rude and doesn't agree with me!" rather than a genuine desire for social justice. Of course, the future is still up in the air, but all is not yet lost.

Our best bet at present is to hope moderate Republican Senators limit the more radical appointees. We can also cross our fingers that none of the other conservative justices retire until after the midterms; Justice Scalia was the complete opposite of a social justice advocate, so him being replaced by a far right Justice wouldn't be too damaging. The real threat lies in other Justices retiring or dying and Trump appointing replacements that alter the balance. This is particularly a threat given the liberal Justices are a good deal older than their conservative counterparts.

As it stands, the conservative Court still supported federal gay marriage and the like, so a lot of what happens really boils down to any Justices' choices of retiring or dying (God forbid).

If all goes well, enough protest voters will turn out in 2018, turn the Senate blue, and the most dangerous part of the Trump Presidency will be over.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What next, are we going to hear about an act that makes it so that being a Democrat is unconstitutional and that they should all be charged with war crimes or something?

This is just pure powergrabbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disregarding that this could get overruled, Obama could still just veto it...

Remember guys: checks and balances--neither branch has full control over each other, and have to work together to get things done, and while Congress makes law, the President signs it and brings it into action if they choose. Basically, if the branches act like children finger-pointing and hurting one another, they just make it difficult overall to get things done.

Heck, this is why the US is hardly able to use its power and influence as effectively, for better or worse.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, as CSS said, the idea this cripples Obama is hysteria. If he vetoes it, which he likely will, it goes nowhere.

It's a symbolic gesture on the GOP's Part, trying to claim the mandate of democracy even though the millions of votes their policies silence is well-documented.

Even if Obama did not veto it, there's another hurdle: the President still can veto each particular rule override regulation. This opens the door for dealmaking: President Trump could threaten a veto if Congress, say, tries to overturn healthcare regulations. The GOP, if it succeeds in passing this rule revision at some point, is just bringing back the line item veto in a way, as now the President can threaten a veto if there's anything he likes being considered for repeal.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/jeff-sessions-attorney-general-confirmation-231602

Better known moderates like Collins, Heller and Flake have backed Sessions' nomination.

He's pretty much guaranteed the position short of some strange defections on the Senate floor. This would be a good time to give a call to swing votes.

If all else fails we're going to have to fall back on lobbying Trump to keep a leash on Sessions. Case in point: Sessions salivates at the idea of expanding the Drug War, but several of the states that backed Trump (Florida, Montana, North Dakota, Arkansas) also legalized marijuana at the same time. That's not counting states where marijuana has already been legalized to some extent; Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania all have medical or decriminalized marijuana. This means that Trump has a vested interest in keeping Sessions away from enforcing marijuana laws, and this should definitely be pointed out to him at every opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sessions is the kind of man you only put in charge if you want to stuff LGBTQ people back into the closet, and silence minorities who dare speak out or protest against voter suppression, police brutality etc. While I suppose it makes sense for the White Identity candidate to put people like that in powerful positions, the appointment of people like Session is just another one of those fear-confirming "this is exactly the shit I was afraid might happen" moments.

Meanwhile, Trump's list of conflicts-of-interest grows again...

Quote

For foreign diplomats, Trump hotel is place to be

About 100 foreign diplomats, from Brazil to Turkey, gathered at the Trump International Hotel this week to sip Trump-branded champagne, dine on sliders and hear a sales pitch about the U.S. president-elect’s newest hotel.

The event for the diplomatic community, held one week after the election, was in the Lincoln Library, a junior ballroom with 16-foot ceilings and velvet drapes that is also available for rent.

Some attendees won raffle prizes — among them overnight stays at other Trump properties around the world — allowing them to become better acquainted with the business holdings of the new commander in chief.

“The place was packed,” said Lynn Van Fleit, founder of the nonprofit Diplomacy Matters Institute, which organizes programs for foreign diplomats and government officials. She said much of the discussion among Washington-based diplomats is over “how are we going to build ties with the new administration.”

Back when many expected Trump to lose the election, speculation was rife that business would suffer at the hotels, condos and golf courses that bear his name. Now, those venues offer the prospect of something else: a chance to curry favor or access with the next president.

More at the link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/2016/11/18/9da9c572-ad18-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html

Please, please tell me that presidents aren't exempt from conflict-of-interest laws. Between this, Ivanka Trump's sitting in on her dad's meeting with the Japanese PM, the entire blind trust fiasco involving several more of the Trump children, and Trump's international business dealings, the conflicts are stacking up higher and higher...

Edit: Fuck.

Quote

Giuliani said financial conflict-of-interest "laws don't apply to the president, right? So, the president doesn't have to have a blind trust."

The president is, in fact, exempt from the primary conflict-of-interest provision in the U.S. code. So presidents do not have any legal obligation to put their financial holdings in a blind trust or to detach themselves from their financial interests in any way.

As president, Trump will have to comply with financial disclosure requirements, however, and he will not be able to take in any income from foreign governments.

We rate Giuliani’s claim True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/16/rudy-giuliani/giuliani-president-trump-will-be-exempt-conflict-i/

The next Democratic president should change that situation, because Trump is probably going to become a lesson in why even presidents should be subject to conflict laws.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, this shit is going to severely bite them in the ass come 2018 and 2020 respectively, isn't it?

And given that everyone who didn't bother to vote thinking Trump wouldn't win anyway, this'll definitely be a good rock hard kick in the ass not to think that shit again if all goes well.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.wicked.online/article-post/texas-lawmaker-proposes-bill-to-force-schools-to-out-lgbtq-students-to-their-parents/?utm_content=buffer2fe22&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

So Texas lawmakers are trying to propose a bill that would force schools to out their LGBT students publicly... I mean...this is pretty sleazy even for Texas. Hopefully it doesn't go far. Not sure how much support its getting though now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a horrible thing to demand. Outing students in conservative states will lead to relentless bullying and a return to the bad old days.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if there's a  coorelation between more of these kind of laws popping up and Trump/Pence getting into the White House.

Seriously though. How about making openly gay students more comfortable and accepted in the already shitty environment before forcing more students to out themselves and be treated shitty? :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Patticus said:

What a horrible thing to demand. Outing students in conservative states will lead to relentless bullying and a return to the bad old days.

Honestly that's most likely the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dizcrybe said:

Honestly that's most likely the point.

I'm thinking the same. With any luck, 2020 will see a Democratic resurgence and a federal ban on this brand of hateful legislation, which should have been consigned to the trash heap of history by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This legit has me worried about many of the middle states, as many of them are conservative red...(also just general red states) hopefully if this passes in Texas it doesn't start a domino effect of other shitty anti-LGBT policies 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't LGBT folks a protected group? Talk about violating federal law...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Man, this shit is going to severely bite them in the ass come 2018 and 2020 respectively, isn't it?

And given that everyone who didn't bother to vote thinking Trump wouldn't win anyway, this'll definitely be a good rock hard kick in the ass not to think that shit again if all goes well.

We can only hope.

It's disgusting to think that there's probably enough people who took Clinton's victory as a given they just didn't turn out.

I hope they've learned their lesson and make a point to come out 2 years from now.

4 hours ago, KHCast said:

I'm wondering if there's a  coorelation between more of these kind of laws popping up and Trump/Pence getting into the White House.

Oh hell yes there is. The Justice Department is the last defense for minorities. For example, it found the police who beat Rodney King guilty of wrongdoing after the lower courts said "Nah." On the flipside, it found Officer Wilson not guilty in the Michael Brown case. While the Justice Department under Democrats often leans a bit in favor of minorities, it's only to enough of an extent that the results of investigations are generally what they should be: fair.

Under Republicans? God help minorities. The cases will be ignored or taken up in the hopes of securing repressive Supreme Court rulings.

With the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, a conservative or reactionary Justice Department, and Republican governments in most states... these next few years will be Hell. There's no protection for minorities other than dropping everything and walking to another state.

1 hour ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Aren't LGBT folks a protected group? Talk about violating federal law...

Yep!

Unfortunately, a law is only as good as it is enforced.

I'll wager Mr. Sessions won't be bringing cases to federal court except to have gay rights overturned.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.