The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[SenEDDtor Missile]

I wonder if Trump or any of the other criminals in his cabinet will try to flee to Mother Russia.

[Patticus]

Considering the information they have access to, or have knowledge of, I'd hope that that won't happen. It'd be a disaster.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

2 minutes ago, Patticus said:

Considering the information they have access to, or have knowledge of, I'd hope that that won't happen. It'd be a disaster.

Plus I’d imagine Comrade Putin would probably have a few accidents planned for them.

[SSF1991]

So what are the odds that the GOP tax bill goes through?

(Also Trump's Twitter briefly went down for a few minutes and everyone had a temporary moment of joy)

[TailsTellsTales]

1 hour ago, SSF1991 said:

So what are the odds that the GOP tax bill goes through?

(Also Trump's Twitter briefly went down for a few minutes and everyone had a temporary moment of joy)

I think it has a chance simply because Congress is bought by wall street, corporations, and other wealthy interests who will fight hard to push them to make sure it gets through.

In other news I saw that they found more proof on how the DNC rigged the primary. It feels like everybody in power are corrupt.

[Tani Coyote]

3 hours ago, SSF1991 said:

So what are the odds that the GOP tax bill goes through?

I'm expecting it will not be a massive overhaul.

A lot of GOP politicians in blue (i.e. high tax) states have reservations against repealing the state and local tax deductions, and that's prompting a lot of it to be rolled back. The problem is the SALT deductions being eliminated would have raised a ton of money, that could then be redistributed through tax cuts elsewhere. A lot of deficit hawks like Bob Corker and Rand Paul don't want a bill that will raise the deficit, even if it would mean tax breaks for the wealthy.

Then you have defectors like Susan Collins in the Senate. She refuses to get rid of the estate tax completely, though she would raise the threshold a little. She's also against a tax cut for the richest Americans. Yes, this is a Republican.

We are likely to see a situation similar to healthcare. The GOP will try to pass a bill that's GOP-only, but it will collapse because of moderates like Collins and Murkowski, hardliners like Rand Paul, and Senators who have nothing left to lose: John McCain and Bob Corker.

In fact, the situation is already eerily similar to healthcare: barely passing in the House of Representatives, and now being discussed in the Senate, where a lot of Senators who don't have safely gerrymandered seats are a lot more reserved about supporting it.

Like healthcare, we'll probably see a watered down bill. Probably an increase in the estate tax threshold with moderate tax cuts across the board. The GOP's in a tough position because it can't really cut services to pay for huge tax cuts either; folks like Collins and Murkowski are too moderate on the subject.

The GOP would get a lot farther if it worked with 100 Senators instead of 52, though. Trump wants to extort red state Democrats, but they're in a position to stand firm if his bill doesn't help the common people of those states. If Democrats are on board, we would see increased exemptions and some simplified deductions, but no upper income tax cuts. Problem is any Senate compromise that raised taxes somewhere would no doubt fall apart in the House.

If the GOP loses the Alabama Senate seat this December, any prospects of a successful GOP tax bill are toast. That leaves them with 51 seats, and Murkowski and Collins routinely screw the GOP over.

tl;dr: Nothing big is likely to happen barring the GOP getting a much larger majority, or the Democrats retaking both chambers. Both are... very poor prospects.

Washington is due to have gridlock for the next 3 years, if not 5 (the 2020 President will enter office with very thin majorities in either chamber, most likely).

[SSF1991]

2 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

In other news I saw that they found more proof on how the DNC rigged the primary.

This doesn't even have anything to do with the primary. Just who was financing the DNC. And they were going to have to finance her campaign anyway. Is it bad? Yes. But not every single thing, corrupt as it is/was, is "rigging primaries". If she was really about rigging the primaries, why didn't she just do the same with the general election? We've been through this before. Multiple times.

I feel like it's still 2016, with how much anti-Hillary stuff is still going around. Even though she lost. All it is doing is ensuring Trump stays in power.

[TailsTellsTales]

4 minutes ago, SSF1991 said:

This doesn't even have anything to do with the primary. Just who was financing the DNC. And they were going to have to finance her campaign anyway. Is it bad? Yes. But not every single thing, corrupt as it is/was, is "rigging primaries". We've been through this before. Multiple times.

I feel like it's still 2016, with how much anti-Hillary stuff is still going around. Even though she lost. All it is doing is ensuring Trump stays in power.

Maybe if they apologized for rigging the primary would be a great start. It's not really anti Hillary, it's more that people strongly feel that if the primary was fair and square, Sanders would have won and went on to easily beat Trump. I already listed reasons on how the primary was rigged. This just adds to that growing list.

[Dizcrybe]

4 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

I think it has a chance simply because Congress is bought by wall street, corporations, and other wealthy interests who will fight hard to push them to make sure it gets through.

In other news I saw that they found more proof on how the DNC rigged the primary. It feels like everybody in power are corrupt.

Funny you mention that; there's some pretty damning evidence that Brazile was lying through her teeth. If, you know, the fact that the whole thing was written like a two-bit political drama novel wasn't enough.

I honestly have to wonder why both the right and the far left are obsessed with Clinton despite the fact that she lost. It's like they're so driven for their blind hatred of her that they're just destroying her character for fun now.

Shout-out to Warren as well for her completely transparent attempt at damage control on CNN.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

12 minutes ago, Dizcrybe said:

Funny you mention that; there's some pretty damning evidence that Brazile was lying through her teeth. If, you know, the fact that the whole thing was written like a two-bit political drama novel wasn't enough.

I honestly have to wonder why both the right and the far left are obsessed with Clinton despite the fact that she lost. It's like they're so driven for their blind hatred of her that they're just destroying her character for fun now.

Shout-out to Warren as well for her completely transparent attempt at damage control on CNN.

I get the impression that the right and far left both want a scapegoat: The right to divert attention from God Emperor Wannabe Trump and his Hateful Men's treasonous acts with Russia, and the far left because they probably blame her for not being able to put their own man (Bernie Sanders I think, or is that someone else?) onto the campaign trail and potentially stop their hated far right enemies.

[SSF1991]

So, update on the governor's race that I've been seeing in my state of Virginia (the ads have gotten worse, by the way).

Ralph Northam, the Democrat running against the GOP's Ed Gillespie, changed his view on sanctuary cities. Which pisses me off, of course, for obvious reasons. He says he'd support a bill making sanctuary cities unlawful. As a result, he lost support from the liberal Democracy For America group. And he's been on the defensive because of a Latino Victory Fund ad. Because, for some reason, that's the god awful ad worth complaining about and not Ed's racist, lying ads. Man do GOPers hate being called racist for doing racist things. That said, there's still concern about minority voters turning out. Which isn't a good sign. So yeah, from the looks of it he's going into election day on the defensive. Just like Hillary.

The only plus side is that the polls, although they swing wildly between large leads and small leads, are still in favor for Northam. He gets leads as small as +4 and as high as +17. Hillary didn't even reach +4 in polls that took place before last year's election, so the larger lead helps. I'm still very nervous, though. And it doesn't help that Northam's flip-flopped on sanctuary cities.

Help me. Make it stop.

EDIT: Just came out. Turns out that Hillary/DNC news was a lie.

 

[Dizcrybe]

That screencap leaves out this vague-sounding tidbit:

Quote

Still, it clearly allowed the Clinton campaign to influence DNC decisions made during an active primary, even if intended for preparations later.

Heaven knows what "influence DNC decisions" means here, but you can bet anti-Hillary people will use that as evidence that the primaries were rigged against Bernie after all.

Also RE: Northam: Yeeeeah, I'm not sure I see him coming out on top this go 'round.

[SSF1991]

1 hour ago, Dizcrybe said:

Also RE: Northam: Yeeeeah, I'm not sure I see him coming out on top this go 'round.

I really don't know why Democrats keep shooting themselves in the foot.

Or why it only takes one of these errors for people to give up on a Democrat, but give GOPers many many acts of forgiveness.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/03/politics/manafort-trial-set-for-may-2018/index.html

It's the GOP's worst nightmare. The Manafort trial will likely begin in May 2018, meaning the trial will hang over much of the midterm season.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/03/politics/women-candidates-ballot/index.html

Trump's Presidency is seeing a tidal wave of women politicians. Emily's List has received 19,000 requests for information on running for office for the first time... up from 920. Applications for Emerge America campaign training are up 87%.

A lot of data is coming from purple Virginia, but if this trend holds into the midterms...

7 hours ago, SSF1991 said:

He says he'd support a bill making sanctuary cities unlawful. As a result, he lost support from the liberal Democracy For America group. And he's been on the defensive because of a Latino Victory Fund ad.

I'll never understand Democrat ideological purity.

Yes, it's bad that he's changed on this issue.

He'll still be miles better than the opponent.

Lesser evils are the name of the game until we have instant runoff ballots.

3 hours ago, Dizcrybe said:

Northam: Yeeeeah, I'm not sure I see him coming out on top this go 'round.

As I recall a lot of data indicated he'll win mostly because of an anti-Trump sentiment rather than his own merits. As in, there's a lot of people who would prefer Gillespie, but want to stick it to Trump.

2 hours ago, SSF1991 said:

Or why it only takes one of these errors for people to give up on a Democrat, but give GOPers many many acts of forgiveness.

If we keep punishing Democrats for not being left enough by refusing to vote for them, it'll cause the GOP to eventually lose!

..right? RIGHT?

[SSF1991]

12 minutes ago, Lord Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

As I recall a lot of data indicated he'll win mostly because of an anti-Trump sentiment rather than his own merits. As in, there's a lot of people who would prefer Gillespie, but want to stick it to Trump.

It also helps that the state is more reliable for blue votes than was the case 10 years ago. And that Northam has raised more campaign money. I'm just scared of another 2016 election result, where the underdog wins here. I do not want Gillespie anywhere near that governor's chair.

Even the 2016 election didn't stop Virginia from giving electoral votes to Hillary, who managed to get 200k more. My concern is the turnout. I think the anti-Trump turnout will overwhelm any "anti-Northam" turnout, but whether Northam will win...I just don't know. Blue strongholds need to turn up. I hope they do. They certainly did for 2016. Turnout in Virginia was up 72% from the last presidential election.

[Tani Coyote]

34 minutes ago, SSF1991 said:

It also helps that the state is more reliable for blue votes than was the case 10 years ago. And that Northam has raised more campaign money. I'm just scared of another 2016 election result, where the underdog wins here. I do not want Gillespie anywhere near that governor's chair.

Even the 2016 election didn't stop Virginia from giving electoral votes to Hillary, who managed to get 200k more. My concern is the turnout. I think the anti-Trump turnout will overwhelm any "anti-Northam" turnout, but whether Northam will win...I just don't know. Blue strongholds need to turn up. I hope they do. They certainly did for 2016. Turnout in Virginia was up 72% from the last presidential election.

It does reek of 2016.

For example. The decision to try and court the black vote by having Obama give a speech as opposed to emphasizing the fact the Lieutenant Governor candidate is black.

Given the Lieutenant Governor is likely to be a key post for the next 4 years due to the close division in the Senate (and the Lt. Gov.'s tiebreaking power), and the fact a Lieutenant Governor has a good shot at becoming the next Governor, the fact Democrats aren't doing much to sell Justin Fairfax to black voters is a real tactical error on their part.

It's rather like how Hillary Clinton chose Tim Kaine rather than several qualified non-white or non-Anglo candidates. I can understand picking a man to try and court the male vote, but picking another white Anglo person seems like a wasted opportunity.

If the Democrats catch lightning in a bottle and somehow take the House of Delegates as well as the Governorship, they need that Lieutenant Governorship to be held by a Democrat, so they can form a working coalition with just one Republican defector in the Senate.

[SSF1991]

The plus side is that Northam seems to be handling his campaign somewhat better than Hillary's. There hasn't been a health/stamina controversy. He hasn't had to deal with the FBI, and the amount of political baggage is very low. He hasn't had a "basket of deplorables" line. And, even with his flip-flop on sanctuary cities, his support isn't suffering from a Progressive split. He lost a liberal group, but that's it. His campaign claims that the group barely supported him, anyway. I don't know if that's true or not, but nevertheless.

The 2016 election really shook me up. Not just because of the crap government we have now, but now elections like this year's stress me out tons more. Like I said, I'm scared of a repeat. And this year's election could directly impact me more, depending on who is elected. So not only do I have to be concerned about the fate of others, but there's also the matter of my own.

[Tani Coyote]

2 minutes ago, SSF1991 said:

The plus side is that Northam seems to be handling his campaign somewhat better than Hillary's. There hasn't been a health/stamina controversy. He hasn't had to deal with the FBI, and the amount of political baggage is very low. He hasn't had a "basket of deplorables" line. And, even with his flip-flop on sanctuary cities, his support isn't suffering from a Progressive split. He lost a liberal group, but that's it. His campaign claims that the group barely supported him, anyway. I don't know if that's true or not, but nevertheless.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/453422/ralph-northam-virginia-democracy-america-pac-opposes-his-campaign-over-sanctuary

Considering the DFA blew the whistle on Northam's campaign airbrushing the black Lieutenant Governor candidate off advertisements... I can't help but feel this will blow up in his face.

I just don't get why he thought it was a smart idea to change sides days before the election. Is he that confident he'll steal votes from Gillespie, when Gillespie is promising the same thing?

If there was any issue to flip flop on, it would have been removing Confederate monuments. I believe it was two-thirds of Virginians are against removing the monuments, and even then, most don't consider it a decisive issue. It would have been a free "hey I'm not that left wing" stance to take to try and court moderates and conservatives, because it would have little impact. Instead he chose one of the most controversial issues to change sides on.

2 minutes ago, SSF1991 said:

The 2016 election really shook me up. Not just because of the crap government we have now, but now elections like this year's stress me out tons more. Like I said, I'm scared of a repeat. And this year's election could directly impact me more, depending on who is elected. So not only do I have to be concerned about the fate of others, but there's also the matter of my own.

I just hope that if Northam blew his chances, a lot of Democrats will still give their support to Fairfax. A Democratic Lieutenant Governor would be a huge relief going forward, as it raises the odds of blocking the GOP agenda in the Senate.

[SSF1991]

I really do hope his flip-flop on sanctuary cities doesn't bite him in the ass on Tuesday. As annoying as that was, he's still a better candidate than Gillespie.

[Dizcrybe]

I don't have my hopes high.

Speaking of elections, though, does anyone know if Maryland has any coming up. I realize it's not exactly a crucial state for Dems (we are probably the bluest state in the South), but I'd still like to know regardless.

[Tani Coyote]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/358782-rand-paul-assaulted-at-kentucky-home-police

So, that joke that Antifa was planning violence on November 4th?

Not much has materialized of it, but then this happened; Senator Rand Paul was assaulted in his home.

Details are scarce but it did come out that he's a registered Democrat. Right wing outlets naturally pounced with the usual "the left is so violent!!" narrative that always comes on the heels of "haha the left are snowflakes!"

I will say something though. I dislike political violence in general, especially against sitting politicians. But this is also just stupid from a left wing perspective: Senator Paul is so ardently conservative he has actively sabotaged the GOP agenda. On healthcare, he wanted full repeal with little compromise (he sank Cassidy-Graham and only backed the skinny repeal because he was promised conference with the House). On taxes, he's very likely to be a deficit hawk and refuse to back it if it raises the deficit any. He'll very likely be the fringe right vote that combines with the moderate right votes of Collins and Murkowski to sink much of the Trump-McConnell agenda.

Even fellow Republicans try to warn Paul that he's an unwitting ally of the Democrats with his behavior, and he just goes "muh principles."

You know, like a Bernie Bro helping Trump win.

4 hours ago, Dizcrybe said:

I don't have my hopes high.

Speaking of elections, though, does anyone know if Maryland has any coming up. I realize it's not exactly a crucial state for Dems (we are probably the bluest state in the South), but I'd still like to know regardless.

Picture shows states that have statewide elections or initiatives on the 7th.

https://blog.flippable.org/100-million-americans-have-an-election-this-november-7e018f35ca4a

Here's a full list of all the ballot initiatives, special elections, etc.

Maryland seems to luck out, not having anything. Most one can do is spread the word, I guess.

Doesn't look to be any special elections for the rest of the year, as well.

[SSF1991]

6 minutes ago, Lord Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

Right wing outlets naturally pounced with the usual "the left is so violent!!" narrative that always comes on the heels of "haha the left are snowflakes!"

Ugh.

Right-wing violence has been just as common, if not more common, than left-wing violence. And any left-wing violence is usually so small in comparison that, as bad as it was, doesn't even compare.

You know what would be nice? If the right had this much anger against their own violence than they do again left violence.

[Tani Coyote]

Just now, SSF1991 said:

Ugh.

Right-wing violence has been just as common, if not more common, than left-wing violence. And any left-wing violence is usually so small in comparison that, as bad as it was, doesn't even compare.

You know what would be nice? If the right had this much anger against their own violence than they do again left violence.

Oh they have plenty of anger against it.

They just decry it as "lone wolves" instead of being a systemic consequence of the ideology, the opposite of what they do with the left.

But honestly? You could make a case the left will be more illegally violent on average. Because the left are usually not the ones holding state power. Which means they can't hide violence behind the veneer of legality that the right can with say, abuses by police, the military, government agencies, etc.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

2 minutes ago, SSF1991 said:

Ugh.

Right-wing violence has been just as common, if not more common, than left-wing violence. And any left-wing violence is usually so small in comparison that, as bad as it was, doesn't even compare.

You know what would be nice? If the right had this much anger against their own violence than they do again left violence.

They're hypocrites, whaddya expect? They have the right to brutalize, condescend and destroy the lives of others, but lord forbid if THEY'RE the ones getting hurt.

[Tani Coyote]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lauriebennett/2012/07/23/red-plate-blue-plate-fast-food-by-political-persuasion/#154b26e27064

Nice article on restaurant chains by their political leaning. Most restaurants lean Republican due to the food regulation and minimum wage issue, but there are several that are quite friendly to Democratic causes: Checkers, Dairy Queen, Jack in the Box, Panera Bread, Popeye's Chicken, Sonic, and Starbucks. Restaurant chains like Applebee's and IHOP are fairly neutral.

Little Caesar's donates fairly equally to both sides. Independent research indicates they donated similar amounts to both Trump and Bernie. Relevant info given the current pizza debate. It seems fitting that the budget pizza chain would have the most sympathy for the working class.