Jump to content
Awoo.

The General 'Murican Politics Thread


Tornado

Recommended Posts

And the writers for House of Cards continue to lose sleep over the herculean task of trying to  write a show that's more fantastical than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, KHCast said:

Still never gonna get how "identify politics" can seriously be a turn off. Oh no, discussing equality and basic rights for non-straight white male americans. Like I can understand moderate discussion of a thing, but even just bringing up sometimes these issues just annoys people, as if we shouldn't talk about LGBT rights being treated like shit lately when looking at things like legal protections, and trans issues.

Well I would say it ignores the poor white people who been struggling for decades. They might feel that their lives do not matter hence why they went for Trump in the Midwest. They have lost their manufacturing jobs over the decades and are going through horrific times especially with drug use.

This why Bernie Sanders would have won. He combined identity politics and the everyday economic struggles of everybody to form a powerful voting bloc that would have beaten Trump in a record landslide not seen since Ronald Reagan. Hillary Clinton did not really care about people struggling in my opinion.

I rather have somebody who wants to fix the disadvantages of minorities, lgbt, and at the same time help the poor working people including white working people. The greed of wall street should unite everybody to fight back and to help all who is disadvantaged. Identity politics can be toxic if people feel left out but if done the right way then it can be a powerful force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now, we wait for Trump to brag about his pardoning powers, even though acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt.

18 minutes ago, TailsTellsTales said:

This why Bernie Sanders would have won. He combined identity politics and the everyday economic struggles of everybody to form a powerful voting bloc that would have beaten Trump in a record landslide not seen since Ronald Reagan

Let's not be too hasty.

For one, Bernie just didn't feel sincere to a lot of racial minorities by the fact he waited until after one of his rallies got stormed by BLM protesters to articulate a criminal justice platform. While I assume many minorities would have ended up rallying behind him anyway as an anti-Trump vote, it's a factor worth consideration.

While Bernie certainly could have taken the youth and Great Lakes votes away from Trump, let's remember that American politics has a strong conservative lean. Given the public option is something that makes a lot of Democrats uncomfortable, his promises for universal tuition and universal healthcare could possibly have worked to push independents towards Trump. Bernie might have managed to keep the Rust Belt but could have lost ground elsewhere as his policies would inevitably involve a lot of taxation.

Consider: California's touted as the bluest state there is, and they got cold feet on universal healthcare recently. Can you imagine what free tuition and free healthcare might do?

Gradual implementation is most likely how single payer and free tuition will happen, and it's no surprise a lot of Democrats make sure to clarify single payer is just one option.

There's plenty of animosity among Democrats towards Bernie anyway. He's seen as a troublemaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Basil (Ogilvie) said:

And now, we wait for Trump to brag about his pardoning powers, even though acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt.

Let's not be too hasty.

For one, Bernie just didn't feel sincere to a lot of racial minorities by the fact he waited until after one of his rallies got stormed by BLM protesters to articulate a criminal justice platform. While I assume many minorities would have ended up rallying behind him anyway as an anti-Trump vote, it's a factor worth consideration.

While Bernie certainly could have taken the youth and Great Lakes votes away from Trump, let's remember that American politics has a strong conservative lean. Given the public option is something that makes a lot of Democrats uncomfortable, his promises for universal tuition and universal healthcare could possibly have worked to push independents towards Trump. Bernie might have managed to keep the Rust Belt but could have lost ground elsewhere as his policies would inevitably involve a lot of taxation.

Consider: California's touted as the bluest state there is, and they got cold feet on universal healthcare recently. Can you imagine what free tuition and free healthcare might do?

Gradual implementation is most likely how single payer and free tuition will happen, and it's no surprise a lot of Democrats make sure to clarify single payer is just one option.

There's plenty of animosity among Democrats towards Bernie anyway. He's seen as a troublemaker.

I put lot of thought into it. Sanders and Trump were similar candidates even though they are very opposite from each other. They both were antiestablishment, they were both outsiders, they were both against trade, they both wanted to repeal and replace Obamacare, they both considered government to be corrupt, they both considered wall street to always taking advantage of people, they both were populists, they both have had massive rallies, they both thought the media was corrupt, and their party establishment hated them.

Interestingly they both could not be bought by wall street though there is a slight difference. Trump can't be bought. Sanders won't be bought.

With that in mind it is easy to see how Sanders would have won easily.

You are right about democratic politicians feeling uncomfortable with the public option, tuition free college, etc. But the regular people wanted change and antiestablishment candidate. They wanted somebody who would bring change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democratic politicians being uncomfortable with public options and the like sounds more like they wanted to keep money flowing into their pockets if you ask me, but I probably don't have the full details on whether that's actually true.

Just made me really skeptical when I heard that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

IWith that in mind it is easy to see how Sanders would have won easily.

You ignored one of my key points.

This is a right wing country at the end of the day, with a system that favors conservative politics. Indeed, if Democrats actually got anywhere with Civil Rights issues, they might see serious bleed of their minority base towards the Republicans.

And no, the polls on single payer don't matter as much as we think they do. For starters, states with small populations have disproportionate pull, which means national polls aren't that useful. For two, who actually turns out to vote is far more important than who agrees to single payer in the abstract. For God's sake, we have a sizable number of people who hate Obamacare but love the Affordable Care Act. Or love "Medicare for All" but despise "government insurance."

Sanders' leftism very possibly could have pushed people into the arms of Trump. Particularly given even California got cold feet the moment its liberal agenda suddenly needed to be paid for by tax and spending increases. There's a reason the left was disheartened by California's failure to pass single payer: if it can't, it's likely no state can.

Quote

But the regular people wanted change and antiestablishment candidate. They wanted somebody who would bring change.

The regular people also want to avoid tax increases which would be unavoidable to pay for Sanders' vast expansion of government. And no, "tax the rich" wouldn't be the saving grace here. For starters, you can only get so much money out of the wealthy, and on top of that, few politicians want to risk alienating rich donors. Taxes would most definitely be raised on everyone.

Which is precisely why Democrats ended up shelving single payer in California. "Insurance companies" is a deflection from the fact that a sudden increase in the tax burden is political suicide.

It's going to be implemented gradually. Guys like Sanders are out accordingly.

Now one could make the case that we should back far left candidates because they'll define the center, like when we ask for more than what we really want with the expectation we'll be negotiated down. But after what the GOP did to Obama, I think backing a further left candidate wouldn't increase the odds of negotiation. We'd end up with even less progress.

4 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Democratic politicians being uncomfortable with public options and the like sounds more like they wanted to keep money flowing into their pockets if you ask me, but I probably don't have the full details on whether that's actually true.

Just made me really skeptical when I heard that.

Possibly, though in today's climate the public option has gained a lot of support. It was actually fairly popular back in 2009, but Joe Lieberman threatened to withdraw his support for Obamacare if it was in the final bill. So we got the broken bill we have now instead.

It's single payer that makes a lot of Democrats have cold feet. And it's not just money in their pockets, it's the fact a lot of Democrats come from conservative states and so going for single payer is a no no.

The public option, by contrast, is a very easy idea to sell, as it doesn't raise the tax burden and can be created simply by changing the laws governing Medicaid or Medicare. Where Obama overcomplicated things was trying to set up a whole new government agency for it. The public option is especially possible in the post-Obamacare United States, as well, given Obamacare's popular regulations have incentivized companies to pull out of the exchanges in many rural areas. Read: in light of the fact Obamacare repeal just isn't happening, rural - and usually Republican - voters have a huge incentive to support the public option. It would mean Americans anywhere have at least one insurance plan to choose from. Obamacare's failures aren't entirely its own fault: it's the fault of private insurers and Republican Governors for doing everything they can to avoid expanding care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lord Basil (Ogilvie) said:

The regular people also want to avoid tax increases which would be unavoidable to pay for Sanders' vast expansion of government.

Which is precisely why Democrats ended up shelving single payer in California. "Insurance companies" is a deflection from the fact that a sudden increase in the tax burden is political suicide.

It's going to be implemented gradually. Guys like Sanders are out accordingly.

Now one could make the case that we should back far left candidates because they'll define the center, like when we ask for more than what we really want with the expectation we'll be negotiated down. But after what the GOP did to Obama, I think backing a further left candidate wouldn't increase the odds of negotiation. We'd end up with even less progress.

It's been interesting seeing your stance on left leaders gradually change. You used to be a hard Bernie guy iirc and were in agreement with most about him likely dominating Trump if he went against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KHCast said:

It's been interesting seeing your stance on left leaders gradually change. You used to be a hard Bernie guy iirc and were in agreement with most about him likely dominating Trump if he went against him.

Oh no, I still like Bernie's ideas.

I just don't see them realistically passing for at least a decade. And I don't think he would have crushed Trump. Beaten, possibly, but crushed? Not so sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love how conservatives and moderates are almost purposely missing the points of these comparisons and making some unrelated argument that has nothing to do with the message.

"well the Berlin was was made by extremist leftists"

stop moving the fucking goal post for once because you don't wanna be wrong.:/

IMG_1886.JPG

IMG_1889.JPG

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://ballotpedia.org/Rhode_Island_State_Senate_District_13

Special elections have become fewer and farther between as the year has gone on, but another was held yesterday. The Democrats kept a seat in the Rhode Island state Senate.

So far for 2017, the Democrats are +3 for seats gained at the state and federal level, having gained 4 and lost 1 in a heavily-Democratic district (the Party didn't run any candidate).

Other than this year's Election Day - November 7 - the real exciting special election will be on September 26, when two Florida state seats are up for grabs. If Democrats make good ground in Florida races, it bodes well for them in 2018.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/22/politics/trump-phoenix-rally/index.html

Preaching to the choir in his Phoenix speech today, Trump defended his Charlottesville comments, while carefully forgetting to mention that he blamed both sides.

More worrisome, he ended up suggesting that he will pardon Sheriff Joe Arpaio of his conviction for contempt of court. Not only is Arpaio an immensely controversial figure due to his hardline stance on immigration and cruel treatment of inmates, but this would also undermine long, hard work by U.S. Attorneys to convict him.

If nothing else, it needs to be remembered that Arpaio is no longer popular in Arizona; despite Maricopa County going for Trump last year, Arpaio was finally forced out after over 20 years of office by a Democratic challenger. Pardoning Arpaio could actually end up backfiring on Trump politically in a state that very well could have two Democratic pickups next year.

What's more, pardoning Arpaio for what should be an easily-acknowledged charge - contempt of court - could set a bad precedent and embolden police brutality.

Trump also blasted Arizona Senators McCain and Flake for their lack of support for his agenda, though he didn't call them by name. He's already supported Flake's GOP primary opponent Kelli Ward, which could actually serve to make Arizona an open seat next year.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/22/politics/kfile-roy-moore-birther-comments/index.html

Roy Moore, the Senate candidate who will try to prevent Luther Strange from continuing to serve as Jeff Sessions' replacement for the Alabama Senate seat, has been found as being on the record saying he doesn't believe Obama is a citizen. This in spite of the fact Obama's term is over so it really doesn't matter anymore.

Either way, it's more reason to lump support behind Strange. While Strange is still a very right wing candidate, it's obvious Moore is even more dangerous, with his blatant disregard for federal courts and questioning of Obama's legitimacy. What's worse: he came ahead of Strange in the three way primary, but couldn't win outright due to a third party candidate.

Alabama's Senate race will be interesting to watch over the next several weeks, with the runoff being on September 26. Whoever wins the GOP primary basically wins the actual election held later in the year.

Humorously, despite the fact Moore basically runs on all of Trump's points and then some, he attacked Strange for his backing from Washington. This is deliciously ironic because Strange's endorsements came from two very prominent Washington Republicans: Mitch McConnell and President Trump himself. So basically, despite running as Alabama's Trump, he's implicitly attacking the actual Trump.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2017 at 11:42 PM, KHCast said:

IMG_1886.JPG

The Iraqis who were provided with the tools to pull the statue down, and given a press pool to cover the statue pulling, by the US military?

Quote

Though we're all familiar with the photos of a crowded-seeming square, ProPublica reproduces photos showing that the square was actually mostly empty, but that media portrayals used tight-focus shots of a small cluster of people to suggest it was packed. Maass adds, "very few Iraqis were there. If you were at the square, or if you watch the footage, you can see, on the rare occasions long shots were used, that the square was mostly empty. You can also see, from photographs as well as video, that much of the crowd was made up of journalists and marines." Of even the small number of Iraqis there, Maass says most were subdued, standing with their arms crossed.

A thirty-five-year-old gunnery sergeant named Leon Lambert, who commanded an M-88 military tow truck, gave the Iraqis the iconic sledgehammer used to knock down the statue. "If a sledgehammer and rope fell off the 88, would you mind?" Lambert asked his superior. As for the flag, it's "One of the Firdos myths" that Iraqis brought an Iraqi flag to put over the statue. Another myth is that it was brought by a U.S. "psyops team." In fact it belonged to Marine lieutenant Casey Kuhlman, who happened to be in the area and had decided that an Iraqi flag should replace the U.S. flag that had briefly covered the face on Saddam's statue.

More at the link: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/01/the-truth-about-iconic-2003-saddam-statue-toppling/342802/

I've even heard tell that the few Iraqis who were in the square at the time may have been bused in by the US military as well. The whole thing was a show to allow Bush to do his little "mission accomplished" event and stupidly ignore the insurgency already blossoming on the streets of Baghdad and elsewhere.

XD

In more actual news though, Steele is helping the FBI's (and presumably therefore everyone else's) Trump-Russia investigation out:

This is some pretty important stuff, as it'll allow more independent verifications of the many claims made in his now-infamous "dossier."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/23/politics/joe-arpaio-pardon-white-house-paperwork/index.html

Trump's paperwork to pardon Sheriff Arpaio is officially put together.

The talking points emphasize Arpaio's service to his community and that he shouldn't go to jail for doing his job.

What Trump is of course overlooking is that Arpaio's sentence is for contempt of court. It has nothing to do with his job. Well, other than the fact the trial was about racial profiling during his job, that he chose to simply not go to.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that he'll likely walk fucking disgusts me. Racism is so normalized that even when it's blatantly in your face, you're the bad guy for pointing it out, and society wants to pretend this shit is in people's heads.:/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the flipside, Arpaio was voted out by a county that also voted for Trump.

This could very well end up blowing up in Trump's face like the Nixon pardon did for Ford.

He's presumably trying a desperate move to try and shore up his credentials in Arizona and with conservatives nationwide, but he might just cost his Party Arizona next year.

This is particularly terrifying for the GOP majority, given what happens with McCain over the next year or so changes everything. Arizona and Nevada together could give the Democrats 51 seats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/24/politics/andrew-hemming-white-house-communications-spicer-priebus/index.html

Yet another departure from the Trump White House. Director of Rapid Response Andrew Hemming - whose job basically involved giving positive news about Trump to reporters - has left the communications staff. The White House is claiming it was mutual but that's hard to believe these days.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/24/politics/mitch-mcconnell-breakfast-comments/index.html

Senator McConnell avoided criticizing Trump at a breakfast in Kentucky, instead showering him with praise. Oddly enough, while he was praising Trump, Trump started attacking him over Obamacare repeal efforts on Twitter. Yes, yet again. He just can't let it go.

McConnell is obviously trying to prevent the split within the GOP from growing worse, understanding sinking to Trump's level with insults will not do him any favors in turning out a unified GOP base to keep the Senate majority next year.

McConnell is promising tax reform, but he has a major hurdle: Trump has said he is willing to shut down the government if Congress doesn't approve money for a wall.

Of course, after how Trump was handed a huge defeat on Russia sanctions, he shouldn't underestimate the power of Congress to work together to spite him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump constantly attacks Senator Flake, going so far as to all but endorse several of his primary opponents...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/24/politics/kfile-jeff-flake-trump-primary-challenge/index.html

Flake fires back by suggesting he thinks Trump could have a tough 2020 primary if he keeps governing the way he does.

And he's right, really. While most Republicans have of course written off the idea of a primary challenge, that's just a goodwill gesture as it's almost unheard of to announce one's bid for the Presidency before the midterms are over.

Ted Cruz did fairly well and has the name recognition to go against Trump if he wants to; compare how well Ronald Reagan did against Gerald Ford in the primaries and it's no surprise Reagan easily clinched the nomination in 1980. Paul Ryan has name recognition as well as conservative bragging rights because he's the only GOP leader to get an Obamacare repeal and replacement passed; he could easily grill Trump on his status as a "negotiator" by pointing this out. Then from the "left," you could have Kasich make a challenge in defense of Obamacare, likely buoyed by increasing calls for compromise in the House and Senate; doubly so if Democrats manage to expand Medicaid in a few more states (the Medicaid expansion is a key reason the GOP's repeal efforts fell apart) by the time the Presidential primaries start.

A lot of Trump's appeal came from being outside the mold of a typical candidate. Of course, now that it's apparent this can easily cause a disaster, he has to do some damage control over the next 2 years or so or risk a drawn out primary that could sap his resources.

Worth noting: Presidents who faced serious primary challenges - Ford, Carter, H.W. Bush - all lost re-election.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/primary-choice-donald-trump-2020/

Also worth noting Trump's continuing decline of support in the GOP base (as found out by Trump's own pollster, who had set out to prove Trump is not losing popularity). Perhaps not enough to primary him, but a bitter primary season is likely to haunt Trump's re-election bid just as it did the three Presidents listed above. Particularly given that unlike Carter and H.W. Bush, he lost the popular vote and only narrowly carried key states. He needs every bit of enthusiasm to stay with him in 2020, or he loses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are actually saying shit like the liberal protesters are being paid to protest and cause an uproar. Lol the fuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Karma? Can you start kicking the asses of these guys now? Like really hard since we legally can't do so ourselves?

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Called it yesterday. Tho the trans thing I didn't see coming. Fucking hell, he's been pushing for this trans out of the military for so long, wtf, and this guy was claiming support of the LGBT community. Conservatives supporting this move can fuck the fuck off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And also Gorka is out of a job. My god can this administration just gtfo already? It's already gone up in flames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While he's stepped up the transgender ban to a memo with more legal effect, I think the military brass and the courts could very well end up tearing this up. At least I certainly hope so. Opposition to the ban is hardly left-wing activism when even military leaders are saying it's unnecessary.

McCain has traded barbs with Trump once more over the Arpaio pardon.

People often attack McCain's maverick status because of his many party-line votes, but it is objectively true that he is one of the most likely Republicans to vote against his party, outpaced only by people like Susan Collins (from the left) and Rand Paul (from the right).

As a man with nothing left to lose, here's hoping that the healthcare vote was just the first of many votes that frustrate Trump. With the strong unlikelihood he'll make it to re-election, he has no base to appease and can do whatever he wants, serving as a Senator with effectively the same independence as a Supreme Court justice. Actively ruining Trump's agenda would be the ultimate revenge.

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.