Jump to content
Awoo.

The General 'Murican Politics Thread


Tornado

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, shdowhunt60 said:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Jon_Kyl.htm

Looks like another warmongering Neocon to me. Perfect replacement for McCain I suppose.

He's most likely going to step down in January.

At which point whoever wins the Governor race will be able to appoint a new replacement. Kyl was mostly chosen because he appeases both Trump and McCain supporters, and he's basically there to help the GOP pass things before the session concludes after the election.

1 hour ago, shdowhunt60 said:

You know, I literally watched everything Tucker Carlson said, and nowhere did he advocate for the removal of these social programs.  That's pretty dishonest of you Ogilvie.

If you think he's arguing we need more government programs or intervention, you're the dishonest one here. This is Tucker Carlson.

His argument is obvious: he says these companies only survive because taxpayers pay for these programs that subsidize them. There's only two ways to go from there: force the companies to pay better wages, or cut the subsidy so the companies wither (a naive, dishonest proposal).

Guess which one he is going to support?

He may not outright say it, but it's read between the lines; the goal is to make people angry at these companies, but also to make people angry at welfare as a system. The messaging is kind of like when a "white nationalist" denies being a white supremacist, even though the goals of white nationalism will inherently involve ethnic cleansing and supremacy. It's semantic bullshittery to make a racist ideology look more tame.

And in the same way, while he does not outright call for abolition of welfare programs, the way he demonizes the "subsidy," his wider ideology, and his hilariously narrow conception of capitalism says all that needs to be said about him.

Sure, he could be calling for a boycott of those companies. But he stopped short of that too, and something tells me that is not his real goal here. The "these companies cannot exist without this subsidy" bit hints at his goal: he wants people to dislike social programs, so his glorious, flawless, anarcho-capitalism can run free and produce marvelous results for society.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, this nike controversy is still going on. I’m both surprised and not surprised at how this has been taking over the news headlines and social media. I mean I get kaepernick getting attention is gonna cause a stir in the republican camp, but idk this feels...differently. Like above the amount of stupid trumps base will usually kick up a stir about. 

As for my thoughts...I mean to me it’s a stupid thing to get pissed over, especially when nike is known for much worse things which haven’t raised this much outrage.(along with the dozens of other comparisons people are making showing hypocrisy here) It’s another weak form of protest from the trump group that’ll lead nowhere, much like Starbucks, Walmart, Target, Dicks, etc. despite what trump tweets say, and only further show ignorance, racism, hate, on your end(Also just sayin, if ya love the troops so much and that’s your main argument for why you’re protesting this, why not just give your nike apparel to the tons and tons of homeless military veterans instead of needlessly burning it, a gesture which won’t effect the company who already got your money?) This just seems like fake outrage to deflect from whatever actual controversy and shit from the gop is going on. Kinda like when Fox News started fanning the flames on that story about the girl killed by the “illegal” to move the discussion away from trumps lawyer

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/this-legal-tactic-can-keep-neo-nazi-protests-out-of-your-city/2018/08/10/c80bc240-9c07-11e8-8d5e-c6c594024954_story.html?utm_term=.33d9694bc330

Last month, a lawsuit filed against both far-left and far-right armed groups that participated in Charlottesville was concluded. The plaintiffs won, and the groups are now forbidden from gathering in an armed fashion in the city.

Redneck Revolt and the Socialist Rifle Association were unhappy at being listed alongside the white supremacist groups, seeing their efforts as protecting people from right wing violence (there actually is a funny story about some Nazis going up to harass anti-fascist people at Unite the Right, but they turned the other direction when they saw the Redneck Revolt's rifles) in absence of police involvement, but they settled nonetheless.

There will of course be outrage at the false equivalency, but I don't think less possibilities for violence is a bad thing.

Redneck Revolt has stated it will donate the money it would have spent on a full trial to the Charlottesville Community Resilience Fund, which primarily helps marginalized groups pay legal fees.

Quote

This just seems like fake outrage to deflect from whatever actual controversy and shit from the gop is going on. Kinda like when Fox News started fanning the flames on that story about the girl killed by the “illegal” to move the discussion away from trumps lawyer

Let us just remember.

When a single person is killed by an undocumented person, the right's proposal is an immediate call for mass deportation.

When dozens of people are killed in a mass shooting, of which there tend to be several a year, there is a request to delay discussion of the issue, and "thoughts and prayers" are offered.

What a load of bullshit.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

When a single person is killed by an undocumented person, the right's proposal is an immediate call for mass deportation.

Wasn’t the person later on found out to be actually a legal citizen, or was that proven false? Cause boy wouldn’t that show professionalism on their end, and totally not make very blatantly clear how you just wanted an excuse by any means to further some shitty scare tactic narritive should it be true, all the while cynically politicizing inaccurately a young woman’s death in order move the discussion away from the party you align yourself with’s scummy bs. Again should it be true(Though most of what I said probably holds water either way)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, KHCast said:

Wasn’t the person later on found out to be actually a legal citizen, or was that proven false? Cause boy wouldn’t that show professionalism on their end, and totally not make very blatantly clear how you just wanted an excuse by any means to further some shitty scare tactic narritive should it be true, all the while cynically politicizing inaccurately a young woman’s death in order move the discussion away from the party you align yourself with’s scummy bs. Again should it be true(Though most of what I said probably holds water either way)

No idea, though I think chasing the legal status is a red herring. It's a massive display of hypocrisy to think some Americans being killed by undocumented people justifies a widespread deportation effort, but countless Americans being killed or crippled by guns is too sensitive to talk about.

Having lived in the Southwest, I have undoubtedly run into some undocumented people without knowing it; indeed, my sister's best friend had an undocumented parent who has since been deported. But when I'm at school, or in any public place, it is not undocumented people I periodically look over my shoulder to check for. I am scared of unhinged people with guns.

Now, in fairness, I do not think even robust gun control would really do much to stop mass shootings, even if it was feasible nationwide. But I think lots of our gun violence can be blamed on conservative policies on healthcare, crime and finance.

Of course, I think Republican and Democratic leaders alike don't really want us talking about that part. They're ultimately on the same team when it comes to maintaining a system destructive to the human condition. When we argue over things like guns and abortion rights and the like, we're distracted from burning questions like "why should people have to worry about having a roof over their head or food in their stomach?" Go figure, we could put an enormous dent in gun violence and abortion procedures if we had stronger social programs.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

He's most likely going to step down in January.

At which point whoever wins the Governor race will be able to appoint a new replacement. Kyl was mostly chosen because he appeases both Trump and McCain supporters, and he's basically there to help the GOP pass things before the session concludes after the election.

To be replaced by what? Another warmongering neocon devoid of any real principles? My understanding is that McCain's been in Arizona so long that McCain basically filled the entire system top-down with more neocons.

Either way, this still ends with the people of Arizona not having any elected representatives, because McCain didn't want to own up to the fact that he had an ailment that severely affected his judgement. Not that his judgement had any value, because he strived for political expedience rather than having any real principles.

14 hours ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

If you think he's arguing we need more government programs or intervention, you're the dishonest one here. This is Tucker Carlson.

Trust me, the derangement from the left has made me more than aware of Tucker Carlson

14 hours ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

His argument is obvious: he says these companies only survive because taxpayers pay for these programs that subsidize them. There's only two ways to go from there: force the companies to pay better wages, or cut the subsidy so the companies wither (a naive, dishonest proposal).

Guess which one he is going to support?

He may not outright say it, but it's read between the lines; the goal is to make people angry at these companies, but also to make people angry at welfare as a system. The messaging is kind of like when a "white nationalist" denies being a white supremacist, even though the goals of white nationalism will inherently involve ethnic cleansing and supremacy. It's semantic bullshittery to make a racist ideology look more tame.

And in the same way, while he does not outright call for abolition of welfare programs, the way he demonizes the "subsidy," his wider ideology, and his hilariously narrow conception of capitalism says all that needs to be said about him.

Sure, he could be calling for a boycott of those companies. But he stopped short of that too, and something tells me that is not his real goal here. The "these companies cannot exist without this subsidy" bit hints at his goal: he wants people to dislike social programs, so his glorious, flawless, anarcho-capitalism can run free and produce marvelous results for society.

I have to retract what I said last night. I clearly wasn't paying attention then.

But I have to protest your claim that Tucker is an Anarcho-capitalist. He's a Laissez-faire capitalist. I doubt that he advocates for the abolition or overthrow of a central government, as he believes that government regulations should be kept to a minimum, because their intervention can cause more harm than good.

And on that basis, I have to side with Tucker Carlson. Employees should be negotiating higher wages from these companies if they're not being paid fairly. They clearly are making enough money to be paying their employees more fairly, but face no pressure because employees are forced to pick up the slack through Welfare. More pressure should be placed on these companies to pay their employees fairly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/06/politics/trump-impeach-your-fault/index.html

Trump is increasingly using fear of being impeached to rally his base. He claims he will only be impeached if his base does not vote, while also stressing there would be a precedent of impeachment.

This is, in Trump fashion, a massive lie. Bill Clinton was impeached and no precedent of partisan impeachment resulted. Democrats did not impeach Bush even though it would have been easy to do so. Republicans did not impeach Obama despite the same. He literally cannot fathom there is something specific to his Presidency that makes impeachment talks more likely. Or equally likely, he is fully aware that's nonsense, but he knows a lot of his base will swallow it.

I'm amused when he claims he "won big." Obviously he's using the Trump math that erases all voters from New York and California or makes out millions of Democratic votes as fraudulent. As usual, he cannot fathom the idea of losing at anything.

But hey, I don't mind. If the Democrats manage to retake both chambers of Congress, maybe he'll cave on issue after issue just so he can claim he won. Let's remember: Trump has no real political platform. He has switched parties several times over the last two decades, and in all likelihood adopted a lot of his far right talk because he knew it would sell to the primary crowd. The only thing he's really been consistent on is dislike for NAFTA.

Quote

To be replaced by what? Another warmongering neocon devoid of any real principles? My understanding is that McCain's been in Arizona so long that McCain basically filled the entire system top-down with more neocons.

Depends who wins the Governorship. The race is ranked as a tossup.

It is not impossible Democrats could win the Governorship and would be in a position to put the most moderate Republican in the state in the seat if they so wish. The only restriction is the person has to be another Republican.

Quote

Either way, this still ends with the people of Arizona not having any elected representatives, because McCain didn't want to own up to the fact that he had an ailment that severely affected his judgement. Not that his judgement had any value, because he strived for political expedience rather than having any real principles.

The people of Arizona will get to vote on a Senator this year as well as a Governor who will get to pick whoever succeeds Kyl. It's not a huge issue they need to wait until 2020 to formally fill the seat by election.

Quote

But I have to protest your claim that Tucker is an Anarcho-capitalist. He's a Laissez-faire capitalist. I doubt that he advocates for the abolition or overthrow of a central government, as he believes that government regulations should be kept to a minimum, because their intervention can cause more harm than good.

He may not technically be an ancap but he is getting close. Other than his call for shrinking welfare, the companies he is complaining about are the result of fairly deregulated capitalism. He has a really contrived idea of capitalism as a perpetual free market, rather than acknowledging the inevitability of consolidation and the formation of powerful megacorporations that will try to stack the deck in their favor. He thinks rolling back the government will fix the problem... except these companies would inevitably use their resources to just prop up and take over the government again. Big companies need a big government to survive.

If he really wants a free market, he needs an aggressive state that routinely breaks up large companies. He needs elections that are publicly-funded and have limits on spending so the wealthy lose influence. He needs mandatory removal of politicians from management of their businesses so they won't have a conflict of interest.

It is the tragic reality of politics that at some point, some freedoms need to be limited to preserve others. The idea we can just roll back the state and everything will be a-okay makes me question a person's grasp of history.

A much better idea is to make the state more transparent so the influence of the wealthy is diluted. Publicly-funded campaigns. Instant runoff or proportional representation ballots. Making it so people can vote in more than one primary election. These are reforms that would greatly weaken the ability of any elite to influence political outcomes.

Quote

And on that basis, I have to side with Tucker Carlson. Employees should be negotiating higher wages from these companies if they're not being paid fairly. They clearly are making enough money to be paying their employees more fairly, but face no pressure because employees are forced to pick up the slack through Welfare. More pressure should be placed on these companies to pay their employees fairly.

I don't think welfare is entirely to blame here. It's the decline of unionization and labor protections that is to blame. Workers need assurance they cannot be fired or replaced if they decide to protest their boss' abusive practices. Otherwise they lose bargaining power.

This goes back to the need for an involved state, though. We tried having minimal government with labor once. Guess what happened? The Pinkertons shot people. Employers routinely threatened to hire racial minorities to shut strikers up. Most dramatically, open conflict between abused coal workers and companies resulted in the Coal Wars. How did we resolve issues like this? Government-backed labor protections.

Labor protections a certain party has been happy to erode. Right-to-work laws, for example, mean workers cannot show solidarity against an employer. A government apathetic to labor right violations means companies are free to request all kinds of illegal shit from their workers. And so on.

Although world trade and comparative advantage being what they are, I honestly think a basic income is a better solution to most problems. It's the one way to protect workers that can't be stopped by simply relocating overseas.

All that said, however, welfare does encourage complacency on the part of the masses. Bismarck was about as far right as they come but even he saw the usefulness of social spending to offset socialist revolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

Depends who wins the Governorship. The race is ranked as a tossup.

I haven't been keeping up with the election in Arizona like I should be. I have a ton of friends there, so I don't know

35 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

It is not impossible Democrats could win the Governorship and would be in a position to put the most moderate Republican in the state in the seat if they so wish. The only restriction is the person has to be another Republican.

I wouldn't want a Democrat. That's what McCain basically was. I wouldn't want a Republican either, but I'd at least want somebody that at least stood for something aside from political expediency.

35 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

The people of Arizona will get to vote on a Senator this year as well as a Governor who will get to pick whoever succeeds Kyl. It's not a huge issue they need to wait until 2020 to formally fill the seat by election.

Yes, but it shouldn't be the case nonetheless. McCain should have stepped down, he was clearly unfit for the job, but he chose not to, and it's really contemptible the amount of fellating he's getting for being dishonest. As it stands, the people of Arizona haven't had even the illusion of representation over the past year, because McCain was seemingly incompetent.

35 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

He may not technically be an ancap but he is getting close.

There is no "technically" about it. Tucker Carlson is not an Anarchist. I doubt he's even a libertarian.

35 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

Other than his call for shrinking welfare, the companies he is complaining about are the result of fairly deregulated capitalism. He has a really contrived idea of capitalism as a perpetual free market, rather than acknowledging the inevitability of consolidation and the formation of powerful megacorporations that will try to stack the deck in their favor. He thinks rolling back the government will fix the problem... except these companies would inevitably use their resources to just prop up and take over the government again. Big companies need a big government to survive.

Yeah, and the Laissez Faire Capitalist argument is why are we propping up these companies to only get bigger and bigger, and not letting them fail like we should? Companies like Amazon and Google are able to get as big as they do due to the amount of subsidizing and protection they get. 

35 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

If he really wants a free market, he needs an aggressive state that routinely breaks up large companies. He needs elections that are publicly-funded and have limits on spending so the wealthy lose influence. He needs mandatory removal of politicians from management of their businesses so they won't have a conflict of interest.

And I'd actually be in favor of most of these to be completely honest. These companies are buying out politicians to protect their interests, and they shouldn't be able to do this. I have no illusions of these companies being in favor of having competition either, they clearly don't.

This is why Tucker Carlson called out Bernie Sanders. There is common ground to be had here, and I think this is why people on either side of the political spectrum need to start talking with each other, because there are solutions to be had.

35 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

It is the tragic reality of politics that at some point, some freedoms need to be limited to preserve others. The idea we can just roll back the state and everything will be a-okay makes me question a person's grasp of history.

As far as I'm aware, I don't think laissez-faire capitalists have ever been proven wrong. History went the way of Keynes, not Friedman. So I don't see how Laissez-Faire was necessarily proven wrong.

35 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

A much better idea is to make the state more transparent so the influence of the wealthy is diluted. Publicly-funded campaigns. Instant runoff or proportional representation ballots. Making it so people can vote in more than one primary election. These are reforms that would greatly weaken the ability of any elite to influence political outcomes.

I don't think welfare is entirely to blame here. It's the decline of unionization and labor protections that is to blame. Workers need assurance they cannot be fired or replaced if they decide to protest their boss' abusive practices. Otherwise they lose bargaining power.

This is where I tend to veer off from a lot of Free Market capitalists myself, I actually fully support the ability of workers to unionize. Unionization is a means with which workers can use as a tool for negotiation.

I do agree though that with the de facto monolopies that these companies even have damages the ability for workers to negotiate their wages. Because in a more competitive landscape, workers would be able to go and work for another company if they get fired. That severely has hampered the ability for workers to negotiate for higher wages.

35 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

This goes back to the need for an involved state, though. We tried having minimal government with labor once. Guess what happened? The Pinkertons shot people. Employers routinely threatened to hire racial minorities to shut strikers up. Most dramatically, open conflict between abused coal workers and companies resulted in the Coal Wars. How did we resolve issues like this? Government-backed labor protections.

I'm pretty sure that in today's, that hiring literal mercenaries to shoot at protesting workers would be considered unilaterally immoral, and would be illegal.

35 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

Labor protections a certain party has been happy to erode. Right-to-work laws, for example, mean workers cannot show solidarity against an employer. A government apathetic to labor right violations means companies are free to request all kinds of illegal shit from their workers. And so on.

Right, and that's why I'm not in favor of them myself.

35 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

Although world trade and comparative advantage being what they are, I honestly think a basic income is a better solution to most problems. It's the one way to protect workers that can't be stopped by simply relocating overseas.

All that said, however, welfare does encourage complacency on the part of the masses. Bismarck was about as far right as they come but even he saw the usefulness of social spending to offset socialist revolution.

Honestly that kind of goes in to protectionist trade policies, and whether or not we should be imposing tariffs on foreign made products, and that goes into the kind of debate that I'm a bit more uncertain of.

Because freely trading with countries like China has done a lot to expedite the social and economic growth of the people in China. I was reading somewhere that the income of the average Chinese citizen has tripled in the past 10 years? Not to mention the substantial amount of liberalization that China has had by trading with the US and the rest of the world... At least to an extent. They are sort of veering into an Orwellian nightmare lately aren't they.

But then again, it's not really good for the working class in America, now is it?

So I don't know. That's the kind of stuff I'm a bit more uncertain on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2018 at 12:28 PM, shdowhunt60 said:

I haven't been keeping up with the election in Arizona like I should be. I have a ton of friends there, so I don't know

Slight Democratic lean, consistent with the trend of the state slowly moving blue.

On 9/7/2018 at 12:28 PM, shdowhunt60 said:

Yes, but it shouldn't be the case nonetheless. McCain should have stepped down, he was clearly unfit for the job, but he chose not to, and it's really contemptible the amount of fellating he's getting for being dishonest. As it stands, the people of Arizona haven't had even the illusion of representation over the past year, because McCain was seemingly incompetent.

It was a strategic move. If he had stepped down earlier, Arizona would have had a special election that quite likely would have put another Democrat in power. He would have basically given the majority to the Democrats.

This way, by being absent, the GOP kept a 50-49 majority.

Unfortunately for McCain's master plan, Jon Kyl is only planning to serve for a few months anyway, which means the Democrats may end up with that seat by putting a Collins-type in it anyway.

On 9/7/2018 at 12:28 PM, shdowhunt60 said:

Yeah, and the Laissez Faire Capitalist argument is why are we propping up these companies to only get bigger and bigger, and not letting them fail like we should? Companies like Amazon and Google are able to get as big as they do due to the amount of subsidizing and protection they get. 

And that's an inevitable end result of capitalism. Large companies have the most to lose, so they prop up the state to avert losses.

Now the proposal is often "well just roll back the state" and that's not viable because the state fills a valuable social service function. Carlson should not be implying welfare is the enemy, but that things like bailouts and farm subsidies are. The farm subsidies are particularly insidious since they were designed to help family farms, but remain in place even as most farms are corporate now.

On 9/7/2018 at 12:28 PM, shdowhunt60 said:

This is why Tucker Carlson called out Bernie Sanders. There is common ground to be had here, and I think this is why people on either side of the political spectrum need to start talking with each other, because there are solutions to be had.

Agreed.

On 9/7/2018 at 12:28 PM, shdowhunt60 said:

As far as I'm aware, I don't think laissez-faire capitalists have ever been proven wrong. History went the way of Keynes, not Friedman. So I don't see how Laissez-Faire was necessarily proven wrong.

I'd have to disagree there.

We once had a pretty deregulated economic period. It was called the Gilded Age.

And it sucked. That's why things like workplace and housing regulations came into being. It gave us one of the most kickass Presidents of all time, Theodore Roosevelt.

History went the way of Keynes because it became apparent a largely hands off state was not providing the best results. The state's involvement made the railroad, the highway system, even the big tech companies on the West Coast possible.

Of course, the state also made the genocide of Native Americans possible. The state is a mixed bag, but that's why it needs to be transparent and why the people who ultimately make it up need to have strong ethics. We'll only get as good a government as the people who elect and serve in it.

On 9/7/2018 at 12:28 PM, shdowhunt60 said:

This is where I tend to veer off from a lot of Free Market capitalists myself, I actually fully support the ability of workers to unionize. Unionization is a means with which workers can use as a tool for negotiation.

Then we would be agreed here. A big reason unions have fallen apart is not only because of outsourcing ruining bargaining power, but the way the government has gradually rolled back worker protections.

On 9/7/2018 at 12:28 PM, shdowhunt60 said:

I do agree though that with the de facto monolopies that these companies even have damages the ability for workers to negotiate their wages. Because in a more competitive landscape, workers would be able to go and work for another company if they get fired. That severely has hampered the ability for workers to negotiate for higher wages.

Even in a more competitive landscape, not necessarily. They'll need support between jobs and are going to be highly dependent on the government for this.

We have unemployment insurance, yes, but there's one party that probably would love to roll that back, and we have food stamps and Medicaid, but another certain party is interested in making those have work requirements.

The GOP's endgame is making workers wholly dependent on their corporate masters.

On 9/7/2018 at 12:28 PM, shdowhunt60 said:

I'm pretty sure that in today's, that hiring literal mercenaries to shoot at protesting workers would be considered unilaterally immoral, and would be illegal.

Thanks to the state's existence, yes.

Though that raises the issue of if the law would be enforced fairly. All the shooter has to do is claim self-defense.

You'd be surprised on the ethics. Millions of Americans handwave the shooting of protestors already.

On 9/7/2018 at 12:28 PM, shdowhunt60 said:

Right, and that's why I'm not in favor of them myself.

Good on you!

On 9/7/2018 at 12:28 PM, shdowhunt60 said:

Honestly that kind of goes in to protectionist trade policies, and whether or not we should be imposing tariffs on foreign made products, and that goes into the kind of debate that I'm a bit more uncertain of.

Because freely trading with countries like China has done a lot to expedite the social and economic growth of the people in China. I was reading somewhere that the income of the average Chinese citizen has tripled in the past 10 years? Not to mention the substantial amount of liberalization that China has had by trading with the US and the rest of the world... At least to an extent. They are sort of veering into an Orwellian nightmare lately aren't they.

That they are, though the historical trend is democracy needs wealth to survive long-term. India is a notable exception, but that's because its people have a strong civic virtue that makes them value their democracy; they told Indira Gandhi, their would-be dictator, to piss off in an election.

The Chinese people also seem more aware of what's going on beyond their borders than say, the North Koreans, so I'd imagine democratic reform within our lifetimes is still very possible.

On 9/7/2018 at 12:28 PM, shdowhunt60 said:

But then again, it's not really good for the working class in America, now is it?

It is a muddied issue, yes. But that's where government policies to help people go between jobs are a good idea. It would be pricey, but the state should honestly look into helping with relocation. The recovery America's had has been uneven; while some areas are fairly prosperous again, places around the Great Lakes are still pretty burnt out.

Which as we know is what gave Trump his win, though those on the left prefer to just claim all of Trump's victory is because of racism rather than the fact he legitimately built a better coalition that could steal some of the Democratic vote. While Bernie Sanders ran on economic populism and social justice, the Democratic leadership were focusing far more on social justice (as neoliberals tend to do).

So which candidate had the better deal for people in a region hit hard by the recession?

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

Slight Democratic lean, consistent with the trend of the state slowly moving blue.

Probably due to the backlash from Neocons shitting all over their constituency. I mean, holy shit, McCain literally called his voter base "The Crazies", and voted against consensus at every possible term. 

2 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

It was a strategic move. If he had stepped down earlier, Arizona would have had a special election that quite likely would have put another Democrat in power. He would have basically given the majority to the Democrats.

This way, by being absent, the GOP kept a 50-49 majority.

Unfortunately for McCain's master plan, Jon Kyl is only planning to serve for a few months anyway, which means the Democrats may end up with that seat by putting a Collins-type in it anyway.

Which would be a very bad outcome for the GOP. Arizona has been a very strong red state for a very long time.

2 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

And that's an inevitable end result of capitalism. Large companies have the most to lose, so they prop up the state to avert losses.

It doesn't have to be. As far as I'm concerned, we need to drop this stupid "too big to fail" mentality. If these companies are literally too big to be self-sustaining, they need to either adapt or die. We need to stop subsidizing failure.

2 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

Now the proposal is often "well just roll back the state" and that's not viable because the state fills a valuable social service function. Carlson should not be implying welfare is the enemy, but that things like bailouts and farm subsidies are. The farm subsidies are particularly insidious since they were designed to help family farms, but remain in place even as most farms are corporate now.

Most Free Market capitalists tend to agree on the latter part. I know I absolutely do.

2 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

Agreed.

I'd have to disagree there.

We once had a pretty deregulated economic period. It was called the Gilded Age.

You mean the Industrial Revolution? A period of time of unprecedented growth of wealth, education, and social development? Sorry, I don't subscribe to the Roald Dhald interpretation of the 19th Century.

2 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

History went the way of Keynes because it became apparent a largely hands off state was not providing the best results. The state's involvement made the railroad, the highway system, even the big tech companies on the West Coast possible.

I mean, I'm not going to go the Public Roads route of arguing. I'm not that big of a lolbertarian, but I don't see how Keynes model has ever proven itself to be sustainable. It encouraged the reckless spending that's caused the horrid amounts of inflation and mounting debt that's wracking our country to day.

2 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

Of course, the state also made the genocide of Native Americans possible. The state is a mixed bag, but that's why it needs to be transparent and why the people who ultimately make it up need to have strong ethics. We'll only get as good a government as the people who elect and serve in it.

I don't think that we're going to get that with the de facto oligarchy that we have right now in the legislative branch. That's something I would've hoped that Trump would've tackled more of, but he hasn't. I'm honestly really disappointed that McCain literally dying in office hasn't sparked more conversation for the necessity of term limits, but then again I think the media has proven itself to be more than enough to be a dishonest enough actor at this point.

2 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

Then we would be agreed here. A big reason unions have fallen apart is not only because of outsourcing ruining bargaining power, but the way the government has gradually rolled back worker protections.

Ideally, I really wouldn't be supporting Right to Work laws. But I think that, like with discrimination laws, it's a necessary evil patchwork evil. I'd be more likely to support it in a more competitive economy, but we don't have that right now.

2 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

Even in a more competitive landscape, not necessarily. They'll need support between jobs and are going to be highly dependent on the government for this.

We have unemployment insurance, yes, but there's one party that probably would love to roll that back, and we have food stamps and Medicaid, but another certain party is interested in making those have work requirements.

At the risk of sounding callous, I think that people should be responsible for themselves and should be prepared for the contingency of possibly losing your job.

I get it. It happens. And sometimes it can be impossible to predict. But I think that there's some measure of self-responsibility here, and I don't think that people should be dependent on the government for whenever disaster strikes.

I'm not opposed to having unemployment insurance. I just resent that people aren't preparing for that kind of thing happening on their own.

2 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

The GOP's endgame is making workers wholly dependent on their corporate masters.

And what's the Democrats? To be wholly dependent on the government? I don't think either end of the dichotomy is particularly ideal.

2 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

Thanks to the state's existence, yes.

Though that raises the issue of if the law would be enforced fairly. All the shooter has to do is claim self-defense.

You'd be surprised on the ethics. Millions of Americans handwave the shooting of protestors already.

I mean, it depends on what you consider to be protests. I don't consider rioting to be protests for example.

2 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

Good on you!

Like I said though, in an ideal environment I wouldn't. But I don't think we exist in that environment.

2 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

That they are, though the historical trend is democracy needs wealth to survive long-term. India is a notable exception, but that's because its people have a strong civic virtue that makes them value their democracy; they told Indira Gandhi, their would-be dictator, to piss off in an election.

That's something that the West in general seems to be lacking, and I genuinely worry at times if this lack of any civic loyalty isn't going to tear us apart in a maelstrom of Anarcho-Communists, National Socialists, and Islamic invaders.

2 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

The Chinese people also seem more aware of what's going on beyond their borders than say, the North Koreans, so I'd imagine democratic reform within our lifetimes is still very possible.

I remain hopeful, but it's looking pretty bleak. It really does look like we even get to thank big tech companies like Google for it too. Social media was a fucking mistake.

2 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

It is a muddied issue, yes. But that's where government policies to help people go between jobs are a good idea. It would be pricey, but the state should honestly look into helping with relocation. The recovery America's had has been uneven; while some areas are fairly prosperous again, places around the Great Lakes are still pretty burnt out.

Which as we know is what gave Trump his win, though those on the left prefer to just claim all of Trump's victory is because of racism rather than the fact he legitimately built a better coalition that could steal some of the Democratic vote. While Bernie Sanders ran on economic populism and social justice, the Democratic leadership were focusing far more on social justice (as neoliberals tend to do).

So which candidate had the better deal for people in a region hit hard by the recession?

Honestly would it matter? We know at this point that the DNC was rigged against Bernie, and Bernie sold out. Hillary was going to be the frontwoman for the Democrat party whether anyone liked it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/10/politics/trump-white-house-fear-op-ed/index.html

Further insanity going on regarding the leaks. Pence and Conway are talking about how the leaks would be a violation of the Constitution and possibly criminal. Conway does her part by character assassinating the writer and theorizing they would leak confidential security information. Pence says being disloyal to the President undermines the Constitution (LOL).

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/09/politics/ted-cruz-texas/index.html

Ted Cruz, desperate to not get his political teeth knocked in two months from now, appeared at a rally and said Beto O'Rourke's supporters want to make Texas a place of tofu, dyed hair, and silicon.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/09/politics/cnn-key-races-senate-update-early-september/index.html

Tennessee's Senate race is heating up, as Phil Bredesen goes the route of Louisiana Governor Jon Bel Edwards and emphasizes his moderate credentials versus the national party. By distancing himself from Democratic leadership and focusing on local populism, Bredesen looks to have a good chance of taking Tennessee for the Democrats.

His Republican opponent's main response? "Uh, well, if he wins, the Democrats get the Senate!" That is basically all he has. Bredesen has laughed that off and stated he is not running against Trump, is a moderate like Doug Jones and Manchin, and will vote with Trump on issues that benefit Tennessee.

West Virginia has moved more safely towards the Democrats, with Joe Manchin's moderate brand of politics winning him a lot of favors.

New Jersey has moved slightly towards the GOP, largely in part because the incumbent Democrat faced a scandal that has tarnished his reputation.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/09/politics/ben-sasse-thinks-of-leaving-republican-party-cnntv/index.html

Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse has been mulling leaving the GOP and becoming an independent. He finds the current GOP's climate intolerable, as was the case with Jeff Flake and Bob Corker.

On 9/8/2018 at 8:23 PM, Jiren (Metro) said:

Can voter turnout overcome election hacking?

Would depend on circumstances.

On 9/8/2018 at 8:57 PM, shdowhunt60 said:

Probably due to the backlash from Neocons shitting all over their constituency. I mean, holy shit, McCain literally called his voter base "The Crazies", and voted against consensus at every possible term. 

It's generally attributed to the growing Latino population of the Southwest and how it's not exactly fond of hardline immigration policies the GOP is more likely to push. Of course, that's also why Senators from the Southwest tend to be more liberal on immigration.

But considering the Hastert Rule has kept moderate GOP members from passing anything in the House (and thus at all)... it's understandable why the Latino vote would be shifting Democrat. Seriously, like 40% of House Republicans would have backed an immigration reform bill under Obama, but since Paul Ryan was Speaker and 60% of Republicans did not like the bill, he decided to not open debate. That bipartisan bill would have passed with huge majorities in both chambers.

Quote

Which would be a very bad outcome for the GOP. Arizona has been a very strong red state for a very long time.

The trend is the Great Lakes are shifting red while the Southwest shifts blue. The next several elections will be interesting due to the abundance of purple states.

Quote

It doesn't have to be. As far as I'm concerned, we need to drop this stupid "too big to fail" mentality. If these companies are literally too big to be self-sustaining, they need to either adapt or die. We need to stop subsidizing failure.

Agreed, though what I was talking about was the inevitability of big companies managing to infiltrate the state and rig it to their benefit. It will only be mitigated with some serious electoral reform. Never mind a constitutional reform, since eliminating private donations would be part of the effort, and that's going to run afoul of case law on the First Amendment.

Quote

You mean the Industrial Revolution? A period of time of unprecedented growth of wealth, education, and social development? Sorry, I don't subscribe to the Roald Dhald interpretation of the 19th Century.

Don't forget widespread worker abuse, child labor, environmental destruction, poor living conditions, etc.

What caused that to stop? The state stepping in and establishing standards. In our case, a lot of it came from the Progressive Republicans.

Yes, industrialization does create a lot of wealth and improves everything in the long term. Because the state inevitably steps in and captures a lot of those gains for the masses.

Quote

I mean, I'm not going to go the Public Roads route of arguing. I'm not that big of a lolbertarian, but I don't see how Keynes model has ever proven itself to be sustainable. It encouraged the reckless spending that's caused the horrid amounts of inflation and mounting debt that's wracking our country to day.

Well, that's the thing. Keynes' model actually calls for rolling back spending in times of good economic growth. That's just not very well followed. Both parties screw this up big time. Bush, for example, thought lowering interest rates and cutting taxes during a boom period was sound policy.

Our system is built on consensus governance that makes it hard to bring about change in tune with economic cycles, however, so... we kind of get screwed there. If we wanted a system more in line with what Keynes had in mind, we'd need a serious overhaul of spending so cuts and increases are automatic. It's one reason something like a basic income shows promise: not only would we be able to eliminate most welfare agencies and reduce the size of government, but the amount spent on it would likely shrink and grow as the economy shifted. Right now there's a lot of arbitrary processes that keep social spending from attaining maximum efficiency. Across millions of individuals, this creates a system that does not adjust to changing circumstances well.

Quote

I don't think that we're going to get that with the de facto oligarchy that we have right now in the legislative branch. That's something I would've hoped that Trump would've tackled more of, but he hasn't.

That's basically why the independent vote has abandoned him with increasing frequency. It was expected he'd be an unconventional Republican who would freely switch between the left and right to govern and could shake things up with his brand of craziness.

Then he started packing his Cabinet with billionaires and has basically towed the GOP line except on economics. To top it all off, he lacks the personal charm someone like Reagan had.

Quote

I'm honestly really disappointed that McCain literally dying in office hasn't sparked more conversation for the necessity of term limits, but then again I think the media has proven itself to be more than enough to be a dishonest enough actor at this point.

It is, admittedly, a topic that likely has not been judged to be outrageous enough. These Senators do still have to win re-election, so people are clearly okay with most of them serving practically for life. If nothing else, heh, I guess the Senate really is the aristocratic branch of the government.

This is another issue Trump was a huge disappointment on. He probably was our best shot at getting term limits being discussed, and he focuses on everything but that.

Quote

Ideally, I really wouldn't be supporting Right to Work laws. But I think that, like with discrimination laws, it's a necessary evil patchwork evil. I'd be more likely to support it in a more competitive economy, but we don't have that right now.

Agreed. Right now all right-to-work laws do is invite abuse. They're the modern version of a factory owner threatening strikers that they will hire immigrants to take their job.

Quote

At the risk of sounding callous, I think that people should be responsible for themselves and should be prepared for the contingency of possibly losing your job.

A lot of people can barely pay their basic living expenses, much less save. This is why we need a safety net to cover people between jobs.

And on that subject, the safety net needs to be less draconian on the expectation of when one finds a job. Not all parts of the country are created equal. Despite the great economic growth we've been seeing, the Great Lakes are still in enormous trouble. This is why that region is so peculiar: it felt abandoned by Democrats and so went for Trump, but Trump also does not seem to be delivering that much. It's going to be interesting to see who comes out of those elections.

The real appeal of a state-based safety net is the flexibility it offers: if we make companies be responsible for social welfare, it will disadvantage smaller companies and also gives companies more power over their workers. It's rather eye opening that a lot of big companies (I believe Walmart was one of them) were huge supporters of the insurance mandate, and wanted it to be broad so they could basically squeeze small companies out of the market.

Quote

I get it. It happens. And sometimes it can be impossible to predict. But I think that there's some measure of self-responsibility here, and I don't think that people should be dependent on the government for whenever disaster strikes.

A good ideal, but it's not viable in current circumstances. Besides, it's better to not think of it as government dependence, but more as insurance. You pay taxes while you're working, so if something happens to your job, you don't need to panic and can start looking forward instead.

That said, it would help enormously if there was less shame at the idea of living with one's parents. It's what a lot of younger people have gone to do until prospects look up, but there's enormous stigma towards it.

Quote

And what's the Democrats? To be wholly dependent on the government? I don't think either end of the dichotomy is particularly ideal.

The same in a lot of cases. Democrats are just Republicans who went the way of Bismarck and realized you need social services to stave off revolution.

The allegiance of many Democrats to big financiers is notable. This is exactly where someone like Bernie was so terrifying to them, because he was proposing massive overhauls to the system and not the patchwork the mainstream Democrats do. Something like single payer removes dependence on the employer.

Quote

That's something that the West in general seems to be lacking, and I genuinely worry at times if this lack of any civic loyalty isn't going to tear us apart in a maelstrom of Anarcho-Communists, National Socialists, and Islamic invaders.

In truth it's mostly the US with this issue. Most of the other Western democracies still have ample participation.

They're also multi-party and parliamentary, though, so that probably has a hand in it.

Our system is Presidential and two-party, so it creates enormous apathy and lack of interest in the system outside Presidential years, which leads to gridlock in midterms, which leads to more voter apathy...

The real concern is autocratic tendencies on the part of Trump, and how well it seems to be going over with a sizable minority. I don't think Trump will cause the republic to fall, but it raises a question: what stops the next Republican or Democrat from trying his way of doing things out? In an age where support for a military dictatorship has been increasing, there's room for concern if the next person to sit in that chair is not more conciliatory. The American system is built on cooperation, and there's a lot of stress on it right now.

Quote

Honestly would it matter? We know at this point that the DNC was rigged against Bernie, and Bernie sold out. Hillary was going to be the frontwoman for the Democrat party whether anyone liked it or not.

It probably would matter. Which is why the DNC has been doing some soulsearching and working to avoid a repeat of 2016 by changing procedures and strategies. There is a populist current in this country, and they're realizing they need to tap it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/11/politics/donald-trump-red-wave-2018-election/index.html

Trump has been talking of a red wave to fire up his base, but history is against him. Even if the GOP manages to pull of a net increase in seats, it is unlikely to be that large. Data would say the Democrats will retake the House while the Senate remains uncertain.

https://www.sunherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/charlie-mitchell/article217952475.html

There is a possibility Democrats will take one of Mississippi's Senate seats in a special election. Because special elections don't have party identifiers, it is possible people will look up Democrat Mike Epsy's platform and vote to send him to Washington to fill out the remaining two years of Thad Cochran's term. If Epsy wins in deep red Mississippi, it is doubly surprising, not just because of his party identification, but because Epsy is African-American.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/11/politics/kyrsten-sinema-defend-arizona-gop-attack-ad/index.html

Democratic candidate for Arizona's Senate seat Kyrsten Sinema is coming under fire for mentioning sex laws should be more nuanced many years ago. While Sinema has been a regular vote to reduce sex trafficking, the bill she had some issues with was one that sharply increased penalties for child prostitution. However, her argument was more complicated than her opponents make out: she was concerned an adult might solicit someone who looked of age, and a harsh penalty for a simple mistake seemed a bit unfair in her opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/12/politics/us-syria-isis-operation-roundup/index.html

The US and its allies in Syria have launched an offensive to push ISIS out of Syria completely. The Syrian Democratic Forces will be backed by US and coalition airstrikes and artillery.

The current military analysis is that ISIS has lost 98% of the territory it once controlled, but it still maintains a strong core of 30,000 soldiers and could easily re-establish itself if pressure is taken off them.

Back at home, it is possible this could influence the midterms. Military victories shortly before elections can have a serious impact. But with a little under two months to go, there will likely be things closer to Election Day that could swing the outcome one way or the other.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/12/politics/impeachment-trump-poll-pelosi/index.html

If the Democrats retake the House, they will struggle with a serious hurdle. With an enormous majority (78%!) of Democrats calling for Trump's impeachment and removal, there is a serious risk that the issue will come up. This is especially acute considering Nancy Pelosi's leadership is likely to be challenged regardless of whether Democrats win or lose.

Considering Newt Gingrich's fixation on impeaching Bill Clinton is seen as costing the GOP a lot of victories in 1998, Pelosi and the party leadership are right to tread very carefully with this subject. Particularly considering there is no way in Hell it would get anywhere in the Senate.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/11/politics/fema-ice-hurricane-funding/index.html

$10 million was redirected from FEMA to ICE. While the funds came from parts of FEMA's budget that were not disaster relief, it still is raising a lot of eyebrows.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/11/politics/donald-trump-fema-hurricanes/index.html

Trump has praised his administration's response to Hurricane Maria in spite of the death toll nearing 3,000. The deaths have been handwaved on the basis of Puerto Rico's electrical grid already having issues beforehand. More specifically, he said it was an "incredible, unsung success," basically saying that you're just a hater if you don't give his administration praise.

Needless to say, Puerto Rican officials like San Juan Mayor Cruz are pretty pissed at this turn of events, feeling praise should always be secondary to a feeling that more could have been done.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/12/politics/steny-hoyer-democrats-future-plans/index.html

Leading Democrat Steny Hoyer has outlined the Democratic policy agenda should the Democrats take back the House.

A lot of it is about cleaning up corruption and promoting transparency, but the Democrats would also aim to restore the Voting Rights Act (that is, they'd create a modern test for federal review to replace what the Supreme Court struck down) and promote redistricting reform.

The real gold of his ideas, however, is at the very end: changing the rules of the House, in line with a proposal by the bipartisan Problem Solvers' Caucus, so any bill that reaches a certain number of cosponsors is automatically sent to the floor.

The effect of that change would be enormous. Currently, House proceedings are governed by the Hastert Rule: for the Speaker to consider a measure and send it to the floor, it needs to be supported by the majority of the majority Party. This has been a disastrous policy because it has basically gutted the ability to have compromises and has turned the House into the shitshow it is. The Senate passed bipartisan immigration reform bills in 2006 and 2013, but the Republican-controlled House each time refused to take them up... because a majority of the GOP caucus did not want the bill. But a huge minority of Republicans were in favor of the bill, and had they been able to pool their votes with Democrats, they would have passed.

The institutionalization of the Hastert Rule stems from rising partisanship and polarization, and an interest by party leaders to exercise more dominance over the House and their members. But it has had the effect of causing serious gridlock by allowing the extremists of each party to control debate. If the Democrats can abolish the rule, and get plenty of Republicans to sign onto it in a show of bipartisan solidarity, we might be en route to making American politics far less toxic. The House is the most awful of the four bodies of government, and while some might yell "Framer's intent!," it's just downright awful if you're anybody who doesn't like the Articles of Confederation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hastert Rule... as in Dennis Hastert, form Republican Speaker of the House and convicted serial child molester? Yeah, it would be best to get rid of everything with his name on it.

Sounds like the Democrats have some solid plans for when the House falls back into their hands. Any word on the CFPB, by any chance? I'm sure that they can't do much to help it without actually holding the White House, but even so, it's basically a servant of Wall St special interests under the Trump administration, and that needs to change.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/trump-puerto-rico-death-toll/index.html

Puerto Rican authorities have reported the death toll at just under 3,000 from Hurricane Maria. This includes people who died from exposure, starvation, etc. in the aftermath of the hurricane while the island worked to restore infrastructure.

Trump claims the study is a lie, because when he left the island, it was only a few people. Almost every other Republican has said this is disgusting.

Almost every other Republican will continue to quietly support him even as they score points by calling out how gross of a person he is.

Let's hope the midterm crowd don't buy their milquetoast nonsense and send them packing.

9 hours ago, Patticus said:

The Hastert Rule... as in Dennis Hastert, form Republican Speaker of the House and convicted serial child molester? Yeah, it would be best to get rid of everything with his name on it.

The one and the same!

Quote

Sounds like the Democrats have some solid plans for when the House falls back into their hands. Any word on the CFPB, by any chance? I'm sure that they can't do much to help it without actually holding the White House, but even so, it's basically a servant of Wall St special interests under the Trump administration, and that needs to change.

No idea on that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/paul-manafort-plead-guilty-forfeit-assets-special-counsel/story?id=57823235

Paul Manafort has agreed to plead guilty. As part of the deal, he will forfeit $46 million in assets to the government. FORTY SIX MILLION.

The Mueller probe has cost far less than that, even with the largest estimates.

So. Anyone whining about Mueller wasting money on this? They just lost their leg to stand on.

And now, to await Trump's inevitable pardon.

That doesn't get Manafort out of hot water, though: if a state court finds Manafort guilty, there's nothing Trump can do about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rumors going around say that Mueller doesn't care so much about Manafort flipping on Trump, rather he wants him to flip on the Russian oligarchs, the politicians they funded, and the western companies and individuals who assisted them. If true, Mueller's going after a lot more people than we previously imagined and this could be much more important than simply removing Trump from office.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, SenEDDtor Missile said:

This feels like we've entered some kind of Cold War II/WWIII hybrid movie. Except it's reality.

I know what you mean - it feels like a real life sequel to The Americans (one of the best shows I've seen in years).

This is a new Cold War period, of that I think we can be quite sure.

Russia's demographic problems (population decline) should ensure that it will not be able to threaten the west for so long as the USSR did, but that still leaves an ascendant China and other powers to contend with. The US has already ceded too much ground to them by leaving the Iran Nuclear Deal, TPP and Paris Climate Accords, ensuring at least a century of intense rivalry and proxy warring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/15/politics/kfile-sinema-flyers/index.html

Desperate to clutch onto Jeff Flake's Senate seat, the GOP is digging really deep to sink Kyrsten Sinema's campaign. They dug up a flyer distributed by a group she was part of in 2003 that depicted US soldiers as skeletons inflicting terror.

She did not design the pamphlet, and she was also a 27-year old Green Party-affiliated activist back then. Today, she's a solidly moderate Blue Dog Democrat. She has voted with the GOP on several proposals and her real claims to Democrat status are her strong support for the Affordable Care Act and LGBT rights.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/15/politics/poll-of-the-week-democrats-house-polling-upside/index.html

Some polling data. While the Republicans have a lot of slight leads in districts and this could leave them with control of the House, it is noted that in most election years, the opposition ends up outperforming polls by several points.

Every vote counts this November. Remember that.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/10/politics/desantis-resigns-from-congress/index.html

House pickup opportunity. GOP Rep. Ron DeSantis has resigned from the House to focus on running for the Florida Governorship. DeSantis has traditionally won his seat with about 60% of the vote. But with the loss of incumbency and the likely higher relative Dem turnout this year, there's a chance for an upset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Patticus said:

I know what you mean - it feels like a real life sequel to The Americans (one of the best shows I've seen in years).

This is a new Cold War period, of that I think we can be quite sure.

Russia's demographic problems (population decline) should ensure that it will not be able to threaten the west for so long as the USSR did, but that still leaves an ascendant China and other powers to contend with. The US has already ceded too much ground to them by leaving the Iran Nuclear Deal, TPP and Paris Climate Accords, ensuring at least a century of intense rivalry and proxy warring.

China is in a weird place, however. It's true that they've experienced a fuckton of growth, but that also has its own problems for a country with a rapidly rising middle class. Chinese people expect better wages, making China less attractive for sweatshop work over time compared to other Asian countries, and the economy in general is a massive house of cards, including issues such as capital flight (rich Chinese getting their money out of the country) and the country is swamped in an obscene amount of private debt. China's economy is simply not remotely as robust and stable as the United States, and there is a massive trade imbalance, as China relies mostly on exporting to the US, while the US doesn't export much to China.

The Chinese Communist Party may not be trying to show it, but they are sweating bullets over the Trump tariffs, because they don't want to fight a trade war, and they're trying to scare Trump off to no avail. Nobody wins in a trade war, but China would lose the hardest. The US is their biggest export market by far, and if companies decide to move elsewhere for manufacturing and such and Americans look elsewhere for other imports, the Chinese economy would go up in flames, which would potentially spell doom for the Communist Party, which has survived on the promise of continuing growth and a stable economy.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/406945-corker-says-kavanaugh-accuser-should-be-heard-out-before-committee-votes

Brett Kavanaugh's nomination just got rocky. With allegations of sexual assault being raised against him, there are calls to postpone the committee vote until after the accuser is allowed to testify.

Republican Jeff Flake has agreed that the vote should be postponed until after she testifies, which means Kavanaugh's vote might be delayed or fail. The GOP is understandably quite interested to get Kavanaugh's nomination through before the midterms in the event of a Democratic takeover, because if they confirm him in the lame duck session? That will raise HELL once the Democrats get in in January.

Also fuck Lindsey Graham. He basically implied the allegations are made up to discredit Kavanaugh when he questioned the "timing." Hey fucko: there's a lot of reasons a victim of that does not usually come forward. But when the person responsible for the assault is about to enter an extremely powerful office? A lot of people realize how important it is to speak up. Maybe you should consider the cost-benefit analysis changing rather than assuming they're lying.

If I'm not mistaken, the nomination will still go to the floor no matter what, however. So the GOP is likely to still ram this through, probably with red state Democrats like McCaskill, Heitkamp, Manchin, and Donnelly voting for, even if Flake, Murkowski and Collins vote no.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Too Many Rings 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.hillsdale.net/news/20180915/rep-leutheuser-sen-shirkey-co-sponsor-national-popular-vote-legislation

In spite of having become a purple state, Michigan is mulling over the National Popular Vote Compact. The Compact has traditionally easily passed the House, but has always died in a Senate committee. Now? Both GOP and Democrat Senators are cosponsoring it.

Based on what I can gather, 25 of 38 state Senators are sponsoring it.

It is looking quite possible we will have a popular vote for the Presidency before the 2020 race is here. For the Compact to go into effect, it needs 98 more Electoral Votes behind it. If the blue wave does come this year, it's quite possible we'll be seeing some aggressive pushing for it in many states, blue, purple, and red.

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.