Jump to content
Awoo.

The General 'Murican Politics Thread


Tornado

Recommended Posts

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-popularity-low-latest-polls-690138

In spite of a huge victory over ISIS that should be buoying him, Trump looks ready to break his previous records for approval and disapproval.

The most recent Gallup poll puts him at 35% approval and 60% disapproval, just shy of his record of 34% approval and 61% disapproval.

Trump hasn't had net approval (more approval than disapproval) since his first two weeks in office. What's more: Trump is presiding over a time of relative stability. There's economic growth and the country's for the most part at peace. He should absolutely be having fairly decent approval ratings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to hope that most Americans won't credit Trump with ISIS' destruction, since it's pretty obvious that he had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Plus, their ideological seeds have long since scattered across the Islamic world, so while the group may have lost in its "homeland," they will remain a credible threat for many years to come, no matter how many Mission Accomplished-style "I Win At Everything, Look At Me I'm Still Here" back slapping events Trump has.

And we're still missing Al-Baghdadi's body, are we not? Guy could easily become the new Osama bin Laden.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think unfortunately for Trump, Bush soaked up most of the war euphoria this generation of Americans was willing to give. We gave him huge amounts of loyalty that allowed him to be the only Republican since 1988 to win the popular vote. It was only after 2004 where we really started to get skeptical...

Between that and Trump's own dislikeable personality, it's no surprise that he doesn't get the same benefits. Not only are the times more partisan, but Trump just leaves a bad taste in one's mouth for the vast majority of people. The Bushes and Reagan at least knew how to be charming when they were doing awful things.

Overall though, his Presidency seems poised to be crippled by the past two. Bush's term used up political capital for warfare, and Obama used up the bulk of the recovery period from the recession. Trump's likely to get a double whammy: being unable to capitalize on military victory or foreign threats, and getting plummeting approval when a recession hits during his term.

Provided the Democrats float the right candidate (which has decent odds: it's a competitive field with no clear leviathan), they're in a position to win in 2020 and 2024. The only drawback will be they're likely to spend most of that term as a repeat of Obama's: with Republicans controlling Congress (any Democrat winning in 2020 is likely to enter with razor thin majorities in either chamber, which they'll no doubt lose in 2022). Short of Democrats really mobilizing and forming a permanent majority that destroys gerrymandering and voter suppression's effectiveness, or a huge resurgence of leftism within the GOP, the 2020s are going to be pretty lackluster. Single payer isn't happening until the 2030s at the earliest.

https://www.salon.com/2017/10/20/8-times-bernie-sanders-made-a-total-fool-of-ted-cruz-during-their-town-hall-debate_partner/

As expected, Bernie Sanders utterly owned Cruz in the tax debate, pointing out deficit hawks will inevitably finance tax cuts by pushing huge cuts to social services, and how Presidents like Bush saw recessions despite the magic of trickle down economics. He also tore apart the idea that left-wing economics leads to totalitarianism by saying Denmark is nothing like Cuba: it is a vigorous democracy as much as it is a welfare state.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/shakeup-democratic-national-committee-longtime-officials-ousted-n812126

The DNC has removed many progressives who backed Keith Ellison for DNC chair from positions. It runs the risk of reopening the wounds of 2016, but the DNC is defending its move as allowing for fresh leadership, citing an increase in minority and youth representation nonetheless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/10/19/cruz-totally-outclassed-sanders-in-last-nights-debate/?utm_term=.312a7a906a36

Meanwhile, have a laugh as a conservative writer insists the Democrats are moving heavily towards the left and how Democrats are socialists because Bernie Sanders didn't have an immediate answer for the difference between Democrats and socialists on taxation. And how they insist "free college" and "universal healthcare" isn't a plan, but "tax cuts" is.

Which is a load of bullshit on their part, of course. We already have a Medicare for All bill supported by many Democrats for posturing: it would ban private insurance and reorganize all the current federal healthcare agencies together as one, while expanding the funding to cover everyone. Tuition hasn't been touched but that's simple too: increase the funding for current federal grants while expanding who can get them.

Like holy shit, this isn't that hard. The only uncomfortable aspect of the policy is the tax raise, and given it's the rich who are affected the most, it's natural they back candidates who warn us about the "evils" of "socialism."

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://news.vice.com/story/trumps-nominee-for-texas-federal-judge-jeff-mateer-admits-he-discriminates-against-lgbtq-people?utm_source=vicenewsfb

Trumps Texas judge pick openly admits he discriminates against gay people. Well at least he's not beating around the bush and denying.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-voters-weinstein-poll_us_59ea11c9e4b0f9d35bca3fd9?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063&utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&utm_source=main_fb&utm_medium=facebook

Trump supporters to no surprise believe the Weinstein allegations, but not the claims against Trump.

also, is "socialism" becoming republican politicians  new favorite word towards anyone not on their side? I swear it's being used so much lately 

 

here's a neat little pic showing the Trump cycle 

IMG_4221.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can the republican side offer anything else besides tax cuts for the rich? It be tolerable if most of the tax cuts went to the poor and middle class but that is not the case. This is one of those things that I can not understand no matter how hard I try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

Can the republican side offer anything else besides tax cuts for the rich? It be tolerable if most of the tax cuts went to the poor and middle class but that is not the case. This is one of those things that I can not understand no matter how hard I try.

Conservative voters tend to have an inflated sense of equality of opportunity (extra points if they have a "self-made" narrative about how they overcame obstacles so therefore anyone can, though I give the benefit of the doubt this is to avoid admitting the crushing likelihood that much of our lives are determined by chance and not choice), so they believe odds are good they'll be among the richest someday. Even if you check every privilege box - white, non-Hispanic, male, cisgender, heterosexual, middle class, Christian - you are not guaranteed that. But since so many of the most successful people check a lot of those boxes it's easy to be duped.

Failing that, they believe the rich are self-made so are entitled to the spoils... those on the left tend to fundamentally disagree with this principle, because we realize that unless a person is a hermit, the idea they are "self-made" is laughable. You wake up in a bed that is regulated to be flame retardant, so you won't be cooked alive in the unlikely event your regulated electrical outlet sparks while you're asleep. You shower in regulated water that isn't poisonous or corrosive, then eat regulated food that only allows so many impurities. You hop in your government-regulated car that has safety features so it doesn't explode like a Pinto when you bump into someone, and if you do bump into someone, your government-mandated seatbelt reduces the odds of you flying to your death through the windshield. You drive along those government roads, fill up at gas stations that are forced to keep prices from getting too high due to competition provided for by antitrust legislation, and then show up to a job where your boss has to pay you a minimum amount because of a government minimum wage, even though he will be selling the products of your labor for a profit you will not see a penny of in all likelihood (unless you buy the company's stock, which may not be possible if your disposable income isn't up to it).

And then a lot of people like you tune in to guys like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, et. al. and, in spite of the fact it's usually Republicans trying to gut the minimum wage and cut funding for government services, become convinced taxation is theft and the government's just trying to steal from hardworking people of all levels. Beautiful.

Overall though, most Republican proposals fall pretty flat when we go beyond surface level logic. Drug prohibition doesn't help drug addiction rates. Tougher sentences don't reduce crime. More policing doesn't reduce crime. Lower taxes for the wealthy don't stimulate growth. There's no evidence welfare abuse is so widespread we need a police state to monitor and harass recipients. There's no evidence that undocumented people are violent and unproductive to such a degree wholesale deportation is a wise proposal. There's no evidence eviscerating gun laws would make us safer. The idea we need an "America first" foreign policy indicates a lack of understanding of foreign policy on a person's part, because the US has pretty much never done something without some benefit to it for the USA, or at least its big businesses. The list just goes on.

Of course, this is why people like Trump are so dangerous. He's making it okay to say facts that don't support a preexisting position are "biased." He's making it so only the fringe are seen as trustworthy.

Unfortunately for him, reality has a liberal bias.

The GOP has to resort to "Cuba!!" and "Venezuela!!" to try and undermine left wing policies because its own policies have extremely shaky ground that's cobbled together with denial of socioeconomic stratification and belief in a deity whose existence cannot be proven. To say nothing of an imperialist innocence complex that leads them to think socialist tyranny occurs in isolation from other factors, like, you know, American imperialism?

To say nothing of how the right jumps on extremists from minority groups or minority causes to demonize the left as a whole (oddly enough, this is how segregationists tried to shut down Civil Rights activists). Leftists, on the other hand? We don't need a radical like Bannon or Trump to say right wing policies just really aren't worth it in the long run.

  • Thumbs Up 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even better: all the money he raised through his campaign merchandise sales is being donated to voter registration efforts.

Those tend to benefit Democrats.

That's some top tier trolling.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/24/flake-retiring-after-2018-244114

Breaking news: Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona will not be running for re-election next year, citing Trumpism and how it's made it unconscionable for him to remain within the GOP.

Flake was always seen as a vulnerable incumbent given Arizona's increasing purple status, and with his retirement, the odds of Democrats flipping the seat have increased. First off, however, will be the primaries: a far right Republican who ran against McCain, Kelli Ward, is the frontrunner among the GOP candidates, while a moderate Democrat, Kyrsten Sinema, is the leader among the Democrats.

Flake joins Tennessee's Corker and Alabama's Strange as establishment GOP Senators forced out one way or the other. This means there will likely be three races where a far right insurgent Republican goes against a Democrat, all in traditionally Republican seats.

How Alabama fares this December will give an idea of how Democrats can hope to do in more moderate territory like Arizona.

Either way, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is surely pissing his pants. 2018 was supposed to be an easy year for the GOP, with plenty of possible Democratic seats to snag and few exposed GOP candidates. But the loss of so many incumbents is threatening that Senate majority and Democrats may end up pulling off a magic net gain of 3 pickups, granting them the Senate majority needed to basically ruin Trump's agenda going forward.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-obsession-with-white-voters-could-cost-democrats-the-virginia-governors-race/

A pretty scathing article on how the Democrats don't give voters of color enough weight in elections, even though in races like Virginia's, non-white voters are numerous enough that Democrats don't need a single white vote. While Democrats do have good reason to work on regaining the white working class vote that helped propel Trump to victory, they should also be focusing plenty of effort on turning out non-whites. The broader your coalition, the more room there is for error; had color turnout been a little higher in the Rust Belt last year, Clinton would be President. And it's not just voter suppression that's to blame, but the fact Democrats are doing a poor job courting colored voters.

In addition to struggling with funding, POC activists see more structural bias in that the Lieutenant Governor candidate is given practically no press attention despite the fact he is African American. Given how the current Democratic Governor candidate is the sitting Lt. Governor, it's very likely the new Lt. Governor will run for Governor in 4 years. It makes perfect sense to sell him as part of the ticket, and yet he's overlooked.

http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/jeff-schapiro/schapiro-the-other-polls-in-the-virginia-race/article_9568ecfa-864f-5464-aa72-9d01c03ba879.html

An analysis of the Virginia race indicating that the polls can't really give much information, but other sets of data can. For example, far more people turned out to vote in the Democratic primaries than the Republican primaries - even in conservative areas - and that could translate to Democratic wins across the board in the general election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Basil (Ogilvie) said:

http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/jeff-schapiro/schapiro-the-other-polls-in-the-virginia-race/article_9568ecfa-864f-5464-aa72-9d01c03ba879.html

An analysis of the Virginia race indicating that the polls can't really give much information, but other sets of data can. For example, far more people turned out to vote in the Democratic primaries than the Republican primaries - even in conservative areas - and that could translate to Democratic wins across the board in the general election.

The fact that the GOP could still win this is just depressing to me. And after everything that has happened so far. I do not wish, on anyone, the political ad spam that has been going on here in Virginia, either. Like...there's 1-2 political ads in every. Single. Commercial break. And there's another 2 weeks left of this crap. Ugh.

Oh, by the way, political ads have also been airing for the Virginian Attorney General race. And Lt. Governor. So even more politcal ads that I have had to deal with. And even more of me getting completely stressed out because the last thing I want my state to do, with this lunatic in the White House, is elect more lunatics in our own state government. This could impact me just as much, if not more so, than Trump's agenda.

I feel like it's 2016 all over again. I'm tired of being politically scared. This is ridiculous.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I learned there's a socialist LGBT gun club known as "[url=https://www.facebook.com/triggerwarninggunclub/]Trigger Warning.[/url]" Some would see the name as offensive, but their statement:

Quote

We decided to call ourselves Trigger Warning not in order to downplay the seriousness of PTSD and the many ways that traumatic experiences have shaped the queer and trans communities, but rather to reframe these traumas from a position of unapologetic empowerment.

They're in solidarity with Redneck Revolt, a working class white, socialist gun club.

Something tells me the NRA and GOP will be a lot more fond of gun control if the trend of minorities arming themselves under Trump - particularly if it's done through left wing or outright socialist gun clubs.

Not to absolve Democrats of their own trends of racism and classism, however.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/12/the-rifle-on-the-wall-a-left-argument-for-gun-rights/

It's a bit long, but an article from a socialist on the usefulness of gun rights. They establish first and foremost you can believe in firearm ownership as a fundamental right without believing it cannot be restricted at all; think how free speech is fundamental but we think there are cases such as incitement where it can be curbed. For example, they feel it's acceptable to ban bump stocks. Overall, though, by making firearm ownership a right, there will be healthy skepticism towards restrictions: they can be imposed, but they need to be well-defended.

The article gets very visceral on how calls for gun control rarely include calls to demilitarize the police or solve social ills that make gun violence such a huge problem in the first place. The capitalist and socialist elements of the gun debate are best encapsulated by an anecdote of a birthday party for Barron Trump, and how the security detail were armed with weapons regular citizens would have difficulty obtaining. The point of the argument: the wealthy who would limit gun ownership will absolutely find a way to continue enjoying it themselves.

The writer also tackles the argument - which they call a strawman - of gun rights serving no purpose for political freedom because they wouldn't stand up to the military. The guns don't have to stand up to the military to be useful for personal liberty: they merely complicate the situation and force state agents to rethink how to approach dissent. He uses the case of home owners banding together with firearms: it would certainly make banks rethink how to seize foreclosed homes, wouldn't it? And if you say "well they'd just call in the police," there you go: that's the whole point of the article. Gun control efforts, often pursued in isolation, do little to weaken the power of the state. All they achieve is changing the calculus so that citizens have less power in a given situation. Compare how, even if you are guilty as Hell, the right to a lawyer will often make a state prosecutor drop your case if the charge isn't serious. The prospect of armed resistance, even with handguns, forces reconsideration of how to approach disputes.

As for the concern of weapons that make violence easier, he raises an interesting point: we should obviously be limiting the right to vote by that argument as well, given how much violence is committed by the state. But that sounds absurd, doesn't it? It's hard to pick and choose who "deserves" to vote in a meaningful fashion, just as it is hard to pick and choose who deserves guns in a meaningful fashion; yes, we can ban those with a history of violence, but the evidence is there that plenty of gun crime is committed by people with no such history. At some point we have to stop focusing on the guns and think: maybe there's something fundamentally wrong with our society that makes even the most well-mannered of people suddenly snap.

In short: abolish capitalism and rollback the state first, and then we can talk about an enormous limitation of firearm rights. And yes, moderate regulations in the meantime are okay too!

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/26/politics/house-budget-vote-tax-reform/index.html

The House has narrowly passed the budget resolution by 4 votes. Noteworthy: the resolution has eliminated the ability to claim state and local taxes as deductions despite the fact one-third of filers use it. Removing the deduction generates revenues of one trillion dollars that can be used to pay for tax cuts elsewhere.

Text of the tax bill is expected next week.

Of course we all know what's going to happen. The middle gets screwed while top and bottom reap the rewards.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/26/politics/democratic-primaries-to-watch-2018/index.html

Some Democratic primaries to watch.

The most interesting one will be California's Senate primaries, where incumbent Senator Dianne Feinstein is looking to have a serious challenge from the Party's left.

However, Governor Cuomo of New York is also likely to see a primary challenge due to frustration that he isn't left enough.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/25/politics/trump-lovefest-gop/index.html

If you needed further evidence Trump' a loon, he claims there's no division within the GOP.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/25/politics/trump-policies-rust-belt-affect-hardest-improve/index.html

An analysis of how Trump's actions are harming the Rust Belt, which could cost him re-election.

The Rust Belt has benefited from Medicaid expansion, requirements insurers cover substance abuse, and pre-existing conditions protections, all of which Trump sought to do away with.

The tax plan, meanwhile, will benefit coastal states the most, as that is where most of the wealthy live, while even the right wing Heritage Foundation has said the decision to axe state and local tax deductions will hurt the Rust Belt especially.

A final backfire was the travel ban: the Rust Belt has a higher concentration of doctors from the banned countries than many other parts of the USA.

Given Trump's narrow margin of victory and the simple fact those outsourced/automated jobs aren't coming back, Trump's 2020 prospects look shaky.

"The polls were wrong!" The weather is wrong sometimes too. Doesn't mean it doesn't give us a good idea of where things are going. Trump can still win re-election, depending on what does and doesn't happen. A weak Democratic opponent, for example, will give him the election handily, as happened when the unpopular Truman pulled off an upset against a weak Republican opponent in 1948. But the odds aren't in his favor: a low approval aside, his narrow win combined with a divisive personality means that only a few voters - around 78,000 in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin - changing their minds or not turning out again will cost him the race. If many of them change their minds and go Democrat, it's only 39,000+1 who need to change their minds.

Trump has a precarious perch, no matter how it's sliced. His supporters continuing to chant he'll for sure win is honestly hilarious given how much it sounds like Clinton's last year. Nothing is for sure until the polls close. All we can do is guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ehh, I'm not sure I'm convinced that any significant portion of the Rust Belt is gonna abandon Trump in time for 2020, especially now that we live in the "fake news" era, where you can just choose not to believe shit despite having all the facts in front of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alexander-and-murray-announce-co-sponsors-of-bipartisan-obamacare-fix/

Despite the regular waffling by numerous officials, the bipartisan Senate bill has come into being. It would replace the cost-sharing subsidies that Trump cut by executive order, and would also give states more flexibility in obtaining waivers on how to spend federal healthcare funds. It currently has 12 Republican and 12 Democratic supporters, so assuming all Democrats are in, it will reach 60 votes and pass the Senate easily.

Then it's up to what the House and Trump do.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/357091-cbo-bipartisan-deal-would-reduce-deficit-by-4-billion

The CBO has scored the bill and has found it would reduce the deficit despite the extra government spending, so the pressure is on for conservatives.

Sadly, guys like Trump have been waging an information war on the CBO by saying that it's always wrong, so we'll see how many conservatives are moved.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marijuana-legalization-gallup-poll_us_59f0c088e4b0d094a5b6b1ce

In other news.

Marijuana legalization has reached a record high of support, with 64% in favor overall, while a majority of Republicans - 51% - now support it for the first time.

Considering earlier this year that Congress overruled Jeff Sessions' request that the Justice Department be allowed to prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries in states that have legalized it, we look to be on track to federal legalization in the near future. The War on Drugs might be rolled back sooner than we think.

38 minutes ago, Dizcrybe said:

Ehh, I'm not sure I'm convinced that any significant portion of the Rust Belt is gonna abandon Trump in time for 2020, especially now that we live in the "fake news" era, where you can just choose not to believe shit despite having all the facts in front of you.

It's not "fake news" when they see factories are still closing and jobs aren't coming back. And that's before the likely recession/inflation of Trump's term hits.

Either way, 78,000 people really isn't that much. I'm sure there's enough intelligent or otherwise moderate people who can defect or otherwise not turn out. As mentioned, we only need half plus one to flip Democratic... which isn't a farfetched principle, since a lot of Trump's Rust Belt voters were usually Democrats anyway. They just liked his proposals more than Clinton's.

Then you have the fact Trump's racist agenda isn't being pursued with full faith alienating some of his far right supporters. Remember #BurnMyMAGAHat? If a deal is cut on the Dreamers, that's it, it's done, he just lost the white supremacist/nationalist vote.

Above all, let's remember the exit and post-electoral polls: about one-fifth of Trump's voters chose him to protest Clinton. 4% say they regret their vote. 25% say they wouldn't vote for him again. Unless the Democrats make a colossally stupid choice of running Clinton as the candidate again, there's good odds of winning back voters in key states. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I at least wouldn't worry about Clinton running again since she's made it pretty clear she's not looking to run in 2020.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dizcrybe said:

Well, I at least wouldn't worry about Clinton running again since she's made it pretty clear she's not looking to run in 2020.

I'd bet real money on Fox, Breitbart et al running National Enquirer-style "Clinton thinking of running?" stories ad nauseum for the duration of the Democratic primaries. The right-wing media, possibly sourced by Russian shit-and-run propagandists, was in a terrible tizzy over "rumors" about Chelsea Clinton being "groomed for office" around the election, so it's not an implausible scenario.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lord Basil (Ogilvie) said:

Above all, let's remember the exit and post-electoral polls: about one-fifth of Trump's voters chose him to protest Clinton. 4% say they regret their vote. 25% say they wouldn't vote for him again. Unless the Democrats make a colossally stupid choice of running Clinton as the candidate again, there's good odds of winning back voters in key states. 

Never underestimate democrats abilities to make stupid decisions. Let's be honest, Clinton would be president if she had won the democratic primary fair and square, but that was not the case. When you have a rigged primary, it turns off people and in this case enough people were turned off to give Trump the victory. Large amounts of people still see the democratic party as a corrupt institution that only serves the rich and corporations. Their only message is "WE ARE AGAINST TRUMP!" like what are they for? They will lose badly if they do not come out with a strong message.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Let's be honest, Clinton would be president if she had won the democratic primary fair and square, but that was not the case. When you have a rigged primary

This again...

As much as I supported Bernie in the primaries, he had no chance. He didn't gain notoriety until halfway into the primaries, being very obscure prior to then. He never gained ground on Hillary at all. Minorities didn't want him. He kept losing states. Hillary got 3 million more votes. Bernie didn't even get half of the states. She didn't even need the controversal superdelegates by the end of the primaries. She already had enough pledged delegates from won states by early June. The DNC wanted Hillary to win, obviously, and the emails suggested they wanted to assist with this. But none of their plans were carried out. There wasn't any actual rigging. Bias, yes, but no rigging.

While I'm frustrated that Bernie lost, his actions haven't been for nothing. The Democratic party has gradually embraced the Progressive agenda that Bernie supports. The party's leadership has Progressives now. And while the party's "establishment" is still iffy on the Progressive wing, they aren't stopping it. I mean, look at the turmoil that the GOP is having right now. Now compare that to Democrats. It's like night and day.

The primary had nothing to do with her loss.

11 minutes ago, TailsTellsTales said:

Their only message is "WE ARE AGAINST TRUMP!" like what are they for? They will lose badly if they do not come out with a strong message.

Um, what? They have made their policies clear in political ads, criticism against Republican bills, and more. They're for Obamacare, for sanctuary cities, for actual tax reform that benefits middle and lower classes. They want more immigrant support. They're for gay marriage, women's rights. They believe in man-made climate change. They want better education.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus loads of Democrats have co-sponsored the Medicare for All bill in both chambers.

Medicare for All probably won't happen until the 2030s at the earliest, but it's established: Democrats want to expand healthcare one way or the other. A public option and/or expanded eligibility for Medicaid and Medicare will follow the next Democrat majority.

Extra points if leftists register as Republican and infiltrate the GOP primaries to put more moderate or even liberal Republicans on the ballot. With the shrinking Baby Boomer and expanding millennial populations, activism among the youth could make serious change. But it all starts at the primaries, which are currently attended mostly by an older, far more conservative demographic; Bernie owes much of his success to progressive activists storming the caucuses.

Then you have the state level. While the federal government has a 60-seat supermajority in the Senate that impedes most progressive legislation, the state governments either do not have it or have a far less diverse population to appeal to. Progressives have come close to passing public option and single payer bills in three states, and that's during a time when Republicans have power; if Nevada had a Democratic Governor, the state would have a public option right now. A GOP Governor's veto was all that stopped it.

Next year, definitely turnout to vote for your Governor and state legislator, and while you're at it, send Representatives and Senators of the same Party to Washington, D.C.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/26/jeff-sessions-criticize-judges-for-ruling-against-trump-policies-244208

Sessions being a crybaby over judges striking down GOP initiatives.

Unfortunately for him, while constitutionalists frequently complain about the power of the judicial branch (except when it benefits right wing causes, of course), pretty much everyone's accepted it as a custom. While leftists hate Citizens United or the ability of Governors to opt out of Medicaid expansion, most of us haven't turned to claiming the judiciary should lose its independence.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2017/10/26/sessions-cant-comment-on-marijuana-crackdown-plans/#3edcf3bc789b

Sessions is also being an idiot with marijuana laws, attacking the strawman that state legalization overturns federal legalization. No. State legalization is the states saying "it's the federal government's law, let them enforce it."

Something tells me he'd take a different tune on the surely God-given right of states to resist federal oversight in elections (something that was put in place by the same judicial branch he hates so much), gun control, gay marriage bans, and Medicaid expansion.

Legalizing states are a far cry from the faux-Confederate lunacy that often permeates states' rights movements. They're simply saying they won't comply with federal law, but the federal government is free to continue enforcing the law. It's very different from "the federal government has no say at all."

Which, through a narrow constitutionalist perspective, the federal government doesn't in many cases. You could make the case the federal government has no right to prohibit or regulate marijuana and other drugs if they're not transported across state lines. This is the case with ballistic knives: they are legal to buy within a state, but not between states.

Sessions is also invoking the tired "if we legalize pot everyone will do pot and move on to harder drugs" nonsense. He likewise attacked a strawman, saying legal pot would be "sold on every street corner," even though most legal marijuana laws limit where and by whom it can be sold.

Hopefully the increasing support for marijuana will deter him from being too stupid on this issue.

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/marijuana-evolution-senator-orrin-hatch/

Some good news. Orrin Hatch, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, has become more vocal in support of legalizing medical marijuana nationwide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

Large amounts of people still see the democratic party as a corrupt institution that only serves the rich and corporations

As opposed to republicans amirite?

 

11 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

Their only message is "WE ARE AGAINST TRUMP!" like what are they for? They will lose badly if they do not come out with a strong message.

What SSF said. Why are people constantly still earplugging this information to keep saying this?

@Ogi regarding the sessions thing, lol. That's like going, "if we allow gay marriage everyone will be gay or start marrying cars!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://splinternews.com/roy-moore-thinks-legalizing-same-sex-marriage-was-even-1819826207

Further news from the Alabama race that indicates the GOP candidate Roy Moore is a psycho.

He claims that the Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage was worse than the Dred Scott decision. You know, the decision that entrenched slavery's legal status prior to the Civil War.

Average polling indicates Roy Moore is above his Democratic opponent by 6 points. The election is expected to be a low turnout affair, so mobilized Democrats could pull off an upset and send a Democrat to the Senate for the first time in 20 years.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/hatch-romney/544211/

Meanwhile, Orrin Hatch has reportedly told allies he will retire and not run again in next year's Senate elections.

Mitt Romney has said he will run for the Senate seat if Hatch steps down. Given Romney carried well over 70% of the vote in Utah in 2012, he'd dominate the race.

Given Romney has been critical of Trump, however, expect Bannon to run a far right candidate against Romney in the primaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SSF1991 said:

This again...

As much as I supported Bernie in the primaries, he had no chance. He didn't gain notoriety until halfway into the primaries, being very obscure prior to then.

And the reason he did not gain attention was because the media refused to cover him. He had no chance because it was rigged from the start. The dnc rigged the debates big time in favor of Hillary refusing to add debates and purposely scheduling them during bad times to protect their candidate.

He never gained ground on Hillary at

all. Minorities didn't want him. He kept losing states. Hillary got 3 million more votes. Bernie didn't even get half of the states. She didn't even need the controversal superdelegates by the end of the primaries. She already had enough pledged delegates from won states by early June.

There was one period in the primary where he managed to cut the delegate deficit by 100. So this statement is false. Younger minorities wanted him. He kept winning states too. Many people who wanted to vote for Bernie could not vote for him since they were independents. Bernie overwhelmingly did well with independents which means Hillary would have been at most a couple 100 thousand votes ahead if all independents were able to vote. Bernie came extremely close in MANY states. He would have won many of them if independents were allowed to vote. The superdelegates were another tool to rig the primary since 90% supported one candidate and the media often would report the combined delegates instead of only pledged delegates giving a false narrative that Hillary was far ahead. Believe it or not Bernie was at one point ahead of Hillary in pledged delegates but you would not know that since they combine superdelegates giving that false impression.

The DNC wanted Hillary to win, obviously, and the emails suggested they wanted to assist with this. But none of their plans were carried out. There wasn't any actual rigging. Bias, yes, but no rigging.

I already say how they rigged it above.

Unfortunately I do not have time to finish going through the other points you made. I finish later.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fortunately that's one area the DNC did learn its lesson on.

The superdelegates have been changed so two-thirds must vote with whoever their state voted for. That still allows some independent superdelegates to possibly distort the race, but it shouldn't be as insane as it was in the era where superdelegates were backing Clinton even when Bernie took their state.

Of course, by the DNC's own admission, the superdelegates exist to give establishment candidates an edge over grassroots candidates, so there's that.

It's worth finding out how to vote for your local state Democratic Party because they're the ones who send delegates to the larger DNC.

http://www.abc15.com/news/national/first-charges-filed-in-robert-mueller-s-russia-investigation

Despite conservative calls for Mueller's resignation due to conflict of interest, the investigation has produced its first charges. They're still sealed and so we don't know who they're against or what they're about.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/politics/trump-state-department-clinton-emails/index.html

Meanwhile, Trump has requested the State Department accelerate the release of Clinton's e-mails that remain confidential.

As we know, the significance of documents is rooted in partisanship. The right cares about Benghazi and emails, the left about Russia. Unfortunately, the fact Trump is sitting in the Oval Office makes investigating him a little bit more important.

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.