Min/Max Boards

Meta Board => Off Topic Fun => Topic started by: Raineh Daze on April 21, 2016, 07:27:36 PM

Title: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on April 21, 2016, 07:27:36 PM
Continue debating the merits of Kasich vs Clinton if you want. :p
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on April 21, 2016, 07:32:31 PM
Clinton>Kasich, no functional difference in what happens with them in office, Clinton not exciting and dangerous to progressives and Democrats.  That is, the party itself, and the Progressive movement.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: FireInTheSky on April 21, 2016, 08:34:21 PM
HOWEVER.  And this is a huge issue, the down ticket will suffer BIG TIME for the Ds.

I'm also worried about this. With how bad the R prez choices are, the Ds have a yuuuge opportunity to pick up a bunch of seats and then actually maybe get some things done for once. But the fracturing / alienation are squandering that opportunity.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on April 21, 2016, 08:37:02 PM
Earlier I've seen a number of Clinton supporters and surrogates say things to the effect "We don't want Is voting, if you're anI wait until the GE" or "if you're an I you aren't a D and therefore are the enemy".  And then in the same breath accuse Sanders supporters of being "like the Tea Party" and intentionally splitting the Ds.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Unbeliever on April 21, 2016, 08:56:05 PM
I don't think the executive action is as powerful as you think it is, although it is more powerful than people realize.  And less powerful.  It's weird.  People think Obama's using it to literally trample on their rights.  Like, manifest them as physical objects to trample on them.  And then they simultaneously think he can't do anything of note with them.  But mostly, it's a directorial thing.  Choose to spend the money that Congress has allocated for these things that Congress has enacted.  And choose how to spend that money.  There's a deceptive amount of stuff you can do with it, because it's all bureaucracy.

And all of that federal policy making?  I don't think there will be a functional difference between the two.  ...  She's slightly right of center, he's right of center, with a far right twinge at times as Bhu said.
“Bureaucratic policymaking is the hallmark of modern American government.” -- Daniel Carpenter, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy (2001).  I could have picked any number of similar quotes and studies on this point.  The Headless Fourth Branch of our gov't is incredibly influential.   

You say that Hillary Clinton is "right of center."  So, I was curious.  I did some googling and looked up her NOMINATE Score.  This post does a decent job explaining them and where they come from, as well as mentioning her score:  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate)  Basically, they are based on a legislator's votes and tell you where they are relative to other legislators.  The only thing I'll add is that NOMINATE scores are very very good.  They are more or less the gold standard for ideological scoring in social science.

Now it's possible you think President HRC would be extremely different from Senator HRC, ideologically.  But, it'd take a huge swing to make her right of center.  Unless you believe the whole Democratic party is right of center ...
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: phaedrusxy on April 21, 2016, 09:08:29 PM
Now it's possible you think President HRC would be extremely different from Senator HRC, ideologically.  But, it'd take a huge swing to make her right of center.  Unless you believe the whole Democratic party is right of center ...
In many ways... they are. If you compare us to most other democratic nations, we're way, way to the right. I think part of what's going on with the popularity of Bernie is that he represents a disenfranchised group of people who are sick of how right-ish the Dems have been (i.e. they've sold out to big business), and want to swing the pendulum back to the left.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on April 21, 2016, 09:37:43 PM
There's a great article on Cracked by Pauli Pousso about how he views American politics.  Well, he and a Candian Cracked writer.  And there's....I'll see if I can find it, an article from somewhere....but it has the major candidates on a normalized spectrum.  Bernie on the far left, Clinton almost dead center but slightly right, and then the rest off to the far right.

EDIT: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/there-is-a-moderate-republican-in-this-race_b_9704194.html

http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-us-elections-look-through-eyes-foreigners/
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Unbeliever on April 21, 2016, 10:26:12 PM
Now it's possible you think President HRC would be extremely different from Senator HRC, ideologically.  But, it'd take a huge swing to make her right of center.  Unless you believe the whole Democratic party is right of center ...
In many ways... they are. If you compare us to most other democratic nations, we're way, way to the right.
Oh yeah, definitely.  I was speaking relative to the United States.  The left/right continuum maps differently for other countries.

And there's....I'll see if I can find it, an article from somewhere....but it has the major candidates on a normalized spectrum.  Bernie on the far left, Clinton almost dead center but slightly right, and then the rest off to the far right.

EDIT: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/there-is-a-moderate-republican-in-this-race_b_9704194.html
I don't know how to say this nicely, but the "normalized" scale is well ... bullshit.  Not that the author is wrong at the gross level of things, he's put people in the right order.  But, the space between them?  The idea that Neoliberal is exactly at the midpoint between Liberal and Conservative (whatever all those mean precisely) is just him making it up. 

That's exactly the reason why things like NOMINATE were developed, to offer a more precise, rigorous, and nuanced view of ideological scaling.  It's quite strong evidence that HRC isn't in the "middle." 

More than that, there is no middle.  If you look at Congress what you see is a big clump of Dems and a big clump of Reps and a lot of white space in between.  The parties have rarely been this polarized:  even the most conservative Democrat is substantially more liberal than the most liberal Republican.  So, even if we posit that HRC is the most conservative Democrat (and there's no evidence that's true), she's still quite a bit to the left of the most ardently liberal Republican (who isn't in the race due to a tough primary fight, but that's a discussion for a different post). 

Although whether that makes a candidate liberal in some objective sense is an entirely different matter.  This is all relative to other political actors in the US.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on April 21, 2016, 10:52:26 PM
Plus putting neoliberalism in the middle is insane, because the instant you drag out a two-axis view of politics it's pretty clear that a pure free market doctrine can't GO more to the right.

EDIT: Well, if you pick market approaches as the horizontal approaches and go with putting communism on the left.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: PlzBreakMyCampaign on April 22, 2016, 11:40:06 PM
Hillary on the right?  :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao Only if you are somewhere between Stalin and Mussolini. Actually that would explain a lot of general seeming 'stupidity' from the boards about anything political\historical; it's not stupidity, its just crazy fascism.

Good luck trying to do some basic education Unbeliever. You have more patience than I.

how he views American politics.  Well, he and a Candian
Well if some guy got together with a Canadian on it....
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: RedWarlock on April 22, 2016, 11:55:01 PM
Tagging in because I respect the hell out of everyone's opinions here and I want to keep watch.

Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on April 23, 2016, 01:38:33 AM
Hillary on the right?  :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao Only if you are somewhere between Stalin and Mussolini. Actually that would explain a lot of general seeming 'stupidity' from the boards about anything political\historical; it's not stupidity, its just crazy fascism.

Good luck trying to do some basic education Unbeliever. You have more patience than I.

how he views American politics.  Well, he and a Candian
Well if some guy got together with a Canadian on it....

Hillary is considered to the right for several reasons, of varying validity depending on your point of view.  Personally I think she's just a panderer who fits her message to whoever she wants to appeal to at the moment, but she's very much a neoliberal, depending on your definition of the word, there being three examples:

Originally Neoliberal defined a supposed third middle way between communism and capitalism. 

Then it became associated more with radical (for the time) free market capitalism in the tradition of Milton Friedman, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

It's also sometimes used to refer to former conservatives who turned liberal, which would fit clinton as she went from campaigning for Goldwater (her current logo is virtually identical to his) to joining the Dems later in life. 

She's rather infamously flip-flopped on a number of issues depending on what she needed to portray at the time, and was well to the right of Sanders before this campaign began.  Both those things make Dems look at her the way Republicans looked at Romney last time:  "He/She may have some core beliefs, but we can be assured we will never know the truth of what those are."

Her attack lines on Sanders campaigns suggesting that he's more conservative than she because of 1 issue (guns), that his core audience is white (he's done well and even won well in mixed population states) implying he might be racist without stating it, and that he's somehow a puppet of the Republicans for pointing out her flaws turn off a lot of liberal voters.  Well that and the open cheating she's been doing to maintain her lead over Bernie.

Is she leftist?  Not by any means whatsoever.  Nor is she right.  She's an opportunist who will say anything or do anything necessary to get ahead.  She'd turn right in a moment if she thought it would benefit her in some instance, except for the fact that she's poisoned that well.  So now she has only one audience to pander to, and she has to move sharply to the left to do it, the way she moved left before when she ran for NY senator.  In appearance she's become more liberal, and even begun to vote more liberal.  But is that what she wants, or just what she sees herself needing to do to get what she wants?

tl;dr: Clinton is as much as socialist as Donald Trump is an Evangelical Christian.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on April 23, 2016, 01:51:14 AM
Hillary is considered to the right for several reasons...

And being a bloody warhawk.  As far as I'm considered, if she wins I'll congratulate the Republicans on winning, because it'll apply regardless who actually wins the general.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Unbeliever on April 23, 2016, 12:24:48 PM
Is she leftist?  Not by any means whatsoever.  Nor is she right.  She's an opportunist who will say anything or do anything necessary to get ahead.  She'd turn right in a moment if she thought it would benefit her in some instance, except for the fact that she's poisoned that well.  So now she has only one audience to pander to, and she has to move sharply to the left to do it, the way she moved left before when she ran for NY senator.  In appearance she's become more liberal, and even begun to vote more liberal.  But is that what she wants, or just what she sees herself needing to do to get what she wants?

tl;dr: Clinton is as much as socialist as Donald Trump is an Evangelical Christian.
I'm not as concerned about opportunism as many people seem to be.  If a candidate adopts a set of policy positions b/c their constituency wants it that doesn't necessarily bother me.  It's one view of representative politics, the Edmund Burke one where you pick the person and trust them to use their best judgment being the other one.  I'm not sure one has anything better to say than the other, and in the modern world of polling I think the Burkean vision, if it really worked, isn't practical.   

I am massively idiosyncratic in this regard, though, so this is a really fair criticism.  And, my above comments (Nominate scores, etc.) have had nothing much to do with my own personal preferences over candidates.  I think there's lots of valid criticisms of HRC.  I'm not intending to come off as a Clinton apologist.  I do however think HRC /= any of the current Republican candidates by quite a large margin.  At least, that's what the evidence shows. 

I also can't really use Right/Left in objective terms, which I get the sense that people are doing.  I can meaningfully think of to the Right of X, or the Left of Y, usually using the medians of the parties in there.  But, some objective scale, where Right or Left are a bundle of policy positions (and, note that we're constrained to two parties, so that bundle is bound to be haphazard as fuck) is hard for me, personally.

@SolEiji
Traditionally, there has been virtually no difference between the parties on foreign policy.  They might use different rhetoric, but that's kind of it.  That observation was pre-9/11, though, so it might have changed.  Obama has been extremely willing to use force in foreign policy, so I don't know if we have any candidates running who wouldn't qualify as hawkish under that definition.  I would wager that HRC would be among the most interventionist (as opposed to isolationist) candidates running, if only b/c that was her job for a while.  Although I think she at least acknowledges that the word diplomacy exists, which is more than Ted Cruz ...
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on April 23, 2016, 01:18:00 PM
Bernie is definitely not hawkish.  So...yeah one candidate isn't hawkish.  He's been against interventionist wars since time immemorial.  He's consistently been on the "no war" platform his entire political career, and famously had his speech against the Iraq war to the empty house back in 2004.

And you're right, Clinton isn't like the current Republican nominees. She's way left of them.  But she's about as far right as past conservative presidents.  I think that's what most of our complaints and explanations of why she's a Republican are.  That's the problem with the comparative scale though, saying "I'm not far left but I'm left of this person" is how we got to the point of the Democrats representing the middle of the spectrum and the Republicans representing the extreme right.  A "moderate Republican today is a nut job 15 years ago.  Notably there are exceptions of course.

But again, the problem with comparisons is that you need an anchor value to make them meaningful.  A choice between two candidates who want to...I'll use something realish....two candidates on the subject of drug legislation.  One is to the right, more conservative than the other.  Say you're a liberal, so you're on board with the one to the left right?  Well, not so fast, the only difference between the two is one wants the death penalty for offenders and the other just wants life in prison.  You wouldn't call the life in prison a liberal, even if they were running on the liberal ticket.  A slightly less extreme version of that is what's happened here.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on April 24, 2016, 04:15:11 PM
http://marshallreport.com/2016/04/24/trollgate-hillary-shill-just-spilled-the-beans-on-trollgate-and-its-getting-weirder/

I'll just drop this here.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on April 24, 2016, 05:02:06 PM
Charles Koch implies possible support for hillary over GOP nominee

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/24/politics/charles-koch-hillary-clinton-2016/

Things like this are the other reason liberals see Hillary as Conservative.  Conservatives are willing to cross over to vote for her, because they say she's Bush-lite.

Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Libertad on April 24, 2016, 10:54:22 PM
Accusations of bribery and corruption are all over /r/the_donald! (https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/4gadwi/head_mod_of_rthe_donald_demods_3_mods_moments/)

So this one moderator, jcm267, deleted his 7-year-old account. As head moderator, his last action was to de-mod 3 of the remaining 4, leaving CisWhiteMalestrom as sole remaining leader over the subreddit.

People think that jcm267 "sold" the subreddit to CisWhiteMalestrom for this action.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Unbeliever on April 25, 2016, 08:22:50 AM
Charles Koch implies possible support for hillary over GOP nominee

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/24/politics/charles-koch-hillary-clinton-2016/

Things like this are the other reason liberals see Hillary as Conservative.  Conservatives are willing to cross over to vote for her, because they say she's Bush-lite.
Well, when the other option is a return to the gold standard ...

(That's Cruz, by the way.)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Libertad on April 25, 2016, 02:18:15 PM
Things like this are the other reason liberals see Hillary as Conservative.  Conservatives are willing to cross over to vote for her, because they say she's Bush-lite.

Oh yay, a President who's either going to tank the economy or get us in another pointless war, but not both at the same time. Such a great deal.

Not exactly, but that's what Bush-lite brings to mind.

Anyway, I think that the Koch's change of heart might be due to the fact that nominally they're self-defined Libertarians. As in they love big business with no rules to hinder their practices and view taxation as theft, so traditionally they supported Republican candidates.

But the whole "maximum individual freedom" thing of Libertarianism doesn't hold up when you're donating enough money to fund the GDP of a third-world country to leaders who helped usher in:
As this stuff gets more and more in the news, you gotta think of your legacy and how future generations will view you. When you're giving money to guys like these, you really can't call yourself a flag-waving patriot who stands stalwart against tyranny without suffering massive cognitive dissonance or being a liar without principles. People forty or fifty years from now sure as hell won't remember you the way you want to be remembered.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on April 25, 2016, 02:25:16 PM
http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/25/cruz-and-kasich-team-up/  And so the much rumored team up begins


Edit: Or mebbe not...
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/04/john-kasich-not-coordinating-his-campaign-on-cruz-alliance
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on April 25, 2016, 05:03:37 PM
Somebody really important must have
dropped a behind the scenes bomb,
because all the sudden things are changing.

The Koch link and the cooperating = the real game is ON.

**

Hillary + Military ... I think she has triangulated
(via The master) the "Woman Must Be sKrong"
combined with NYCity liberals are a tad hawkish.
Total non-starter for her '02 Senate campaign.

Joe Lieberman was a solid Democrat, excepting
his ultra-hawkish Israel + military opinions.
Hillary isn't out into that category.


btw I don't think a Mondale or Dole landslide *
is usually possible these days, with massive
focus group-ing available to both Dems + Repubs.
This comes straight out of what Clinton 40 did/does.

* Trump hasn't had access to insider Repub data
and still may not get access to it.  That doesn't mean
he had no data ; his TV stuff was better for a while.


Big night tomorrow.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on April 25, 2016, 05:18:01 PM
... ooooooh boy.

Saw a short tv interview with a PA Unbound
Delegate Candidate, who said he had spent
$30,000 of his own money to get the slot.
I haven't found a link for it yet and don't recall
if it was said whether he was Dem or Repub.

'Course I pay for gas to go vote, and my sanity.

Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on April 25, 2016, 05:56:28 PM
So I've been doing my research on the races I'll be voting on this November (and next week)?  They all suck.  A lot.  I have almost no choice.  My Senate race right now?  It's between three people.  Two (R) and one (D).  The (D) has approx. -1985672383957201856% chance to win.  Because he's just awful as a candidate.  Like, can't campaign worth crap.  Looks like a law student trying to run.  He's a former Rep!  But his campaign looks awful.  Also IN is awful red.  But the other two?  They're trying to be Trump and Cruz.  The Trump is literally insane.  The Cruz is insane and corrupt, but less insane than the Trump.  I have no real choice at state rep, but my one option is at least decent (she's not bad actually), it's just that it won't DO anything.  And then for the other things, well, who looks at AG and judge elections?  Me.  Why?  I have no idea why we elect judges.  It's the stupidest thing.  AG shouldn't really be either.  But yeah, not enamored with what I have to choose from.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on April 25, 2016, 11:15:04 PM
I only found out last week that you have elected judges.

I am completely lost on why anyone decided to politicise what was intended to be the branch of government that is independent of (direct, at least) politics.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Unbeliever on April 25, 2016, 11:38:32 PM
There is a prominent argument for electing judges, though I don't know it well off the top of my head.  It's sort of the same reason one has juries -- to make the justice system less oligarchic.  And, if you think democracy is important, as a general rule, you want the development of legal rules to be tethered to it somehow.  The "countermajoritarian difficulty" of having unelected judges trump the policy decisions of elected officials (aka judicial review) is a major issue in US law, politics, and philosophy. 

Also, I'm not entirely sure that it makes all that much of a difference.  Is it all that different to have a judge appointed by elected officials than to elect the judge herself?  All you're doing is introducing a lag (and, perhaps some norms, but those don't stand up too well).  If the lag is long enough and things are protean enough, maybe there's a difference, but it's not obvious that those conditions obtain or that it's a big effect.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on April 26, 2016, 12:04:41 AM
Yes.  One of the biggest reasons it's problematic is that in election years, sentences are harsher.  Judges run on being tough on crime, not fair and impartial.  Hiring based on merit won't have that.  Well, as much.  We need to reform the system, and not have elections for judges.  Judges should be hired as impartial arbiters of the law, not elected to act in accordance with the electorate.  The legislature is what changes the law as to the accordance with the electorate, the executive makes sure things run smoothly and prioritizes funds, the judicial makes sure things run according to the law and rules.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Unbeliever on April 26, 2016, 09:00:43 AM
One of the biggest reasons it's problematic is that in election years, sentences are harsher.  Judges run on being tough on crime, not fair and impartial. 
Yeah, one of my colleagues did a great study on that.  Running for reelection is probably the biggest problem, now that I have a cup of coffee and am thinking of that. 

But, what's "merit"?  Is it what law school they went to?  How do you distinguish between the thousands of graduates from top 5 schools?  Not that I'd want to use that as an indicator anyway. 

The above post neglects all of the important policymaking that all 3 branches do.  Even the core purpose of "mak[ing] sure things run according to the law and rules" is startlingly complex and laden with value judgments.  I wrote an exam yesterday for Conflict of Laws, which is a civil procedure course and very abstract (and almost entirely judge-made law) and there's a number of value judgments even in that. 

All the branches are exercising power, and that's probably inevitable, at least given the way we characterize them.  I'm not sure if there's a better way or a way that sidesteps that -- it'd be such a radical change that I haven't given it much thought.  You could do away with judicial review -- although that's pretty arguably just making sure people follow the rules (in this instance, the Constitution, etc.) -- but that wouldn't get rid of the interstitial legal rulemaking that judges do. 
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Nanshork on April 26, 2016, 10:22:15 AM
I'm finally going to post in a politics thread, god help me.  At least this one and the last one seemed pretty argument free.


We started electing judges because (IIRC) when it was changed so that judges would be elected there was a lot of corruption and people nominating their friends to be judges and whatnot.  Yes, it's a shitty idea.  Judges should be impartial, not running around making crazy commercials (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Du_WEHjMMw).  Most aren't (and shouldn't be) politicians so they don't know how to campaign anyway.

There's issues either way, but I've seen some push to go back to appointees.  I don't know if that'll go anywhere though.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on April 26, 2016, 10:44:17 AM
I mean, we already do appointees.  The SCOTUS is appointed.  As are a number of other, lower ones.  But we can't have elected judge offices while we treat them political at all.  And as humans we can't not treat them politically.  It's so deeply ingrained in our consciousness I don't think we can separate that.  I don't really have a solution here and I'm probably not doing a good job of indicating that.  I'm just saying things suck.

As for the judicial review things?  Yeah, I understand completely.  I was over simplistic with my description, but the judgment issue is not really policy making, it's more....interpretation.  And that does change with time, you're right.  But I wouldn't call it policy making, it's just differing interpretations of the same law.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Nanshork on April 26, 2016, 10:56:28 AM
I am aware that we have appointees, I meant that there's some push to do away with electing judges altogether.   :P
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on April 26, 2016, 11:20:10 AM
I know, just noting that we already have it so it wouldn't be a HUGE leap.  Although, I have to admit there's a lot of people I wouldn't trust appointing judges.  However, those people are elected by people I wouldn't trust to elect judges.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Libertad on April 26, 2016, 02:52:59 PM
The problem with electing judges is that you end up getting demagogues and yahoos with little to no legal experience running and getting a lot of votes because of it.

Take North Carolina, for instance. We let our State Supreme Court justices run for office like Senators and Governors. We ended up getting a lot of fundamentalist Christians running who believed that the First Amendment applied to only Christians and Jews because they define "freedom of religion" as being the sole province of the Abrahamic God. Muslims, Druze, and other Abrahamic monotheists don't count because reasons.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on April 26, 2016, 04:32:51 PM
The problem with electing judges is that you end up getting demagogues and yahoos with little to no legal experience running and getting a lot of votes because of it.

Take North Carolina, for instance. We let our State Supreme Court justices run for office like Senators and Governors. We ended up getting a lot of fundamentalist Christians running who believed that the First Amendment applied to only Christians and Jews because they define "freedom of religion" as being the sole province of the Abrahamic God. Muslims, Druze, and other Abrahamic monotheists don't count because reasons.

Talk about an education failure (on their part).
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on April 26, 2016, 06:42:43 PM
I voted today.

My ballot included a state race I didn't know existed,
and the local women's club sponsored Voters guide
had no mention of it either.  I've googled around for
info ... and have not found anything.  Weird.
I didn't vote on that one.

I guinea pig'd myself for the handicapped voting machine.
The election supervisor didn't know how to operate it, and
figured I would try it out for him.  It worked, I hope it works.

Turnout was at the '08 Hill v Obama primary levels.
There wasn't any drama on the Repub side that year,
so I'm'n'a count this year as a slightly lower turnout.
I don't think that's good news for Bernie fans.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on April 26, 2016, 11:59:18 PM
The DNC is playing with fire.  They now need Sanders to get the nomination.  Need.  Otherwise, this will be the first Presidential election in a long time in which the RNC gains in the Senate/House.  Normally the off elections are where they gain seats, but this time Hillary is so unpopular that she's going to cause a lot of conservative down ballot elections.  She's already primed to be the most unpopular candidate to win a presidency.  And I'm not 100% convinced she'll beat Trump.  And it's all the fault of the DNC.  This is something that's been building for a long time and it's finally coming to a head.  It's not really a fault of any specific incident, but a perfect storm of corruption, lack of real change, broken promises, and the national parties.  Hillary's probably the most unlucky candidate, in addition to her lack of appeal.  In 2008 she had the first black resident she's going against.  Now she's against an actual progressive?  With bipartisan support and a LOT of independent support?  In an election where she'd likely have to go against the worst candidate in history?  She had to lie and cheat her way to this nomination to get the easiest November ticket to win ever.  And it's going to cost her the presidency.

This whole thing has exposed the problems with the primary system, in a BIG way.  This is just the first time that it's been visible....well, since the 70s....when they changed the rules to make it harder for grass roots (re: popular but not establishment) candidates to win.  They thought they fixed the issue with that.  But they only hid it.  And it's taken the most popular candidate in a LONG time to expose this issue.  Hillary will probably win in November.  Probably.  She could very well lose yes to even Trump.  Sanders wouldn't lose to any R nominee.  Sanders would mean a wealth of blue pickups in the House and Senate.  Clinton means no change or lost ground.  And earlier, when I linked Radio Head's song Just (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jufT3v1roaU) as the RNC's song for this election?  I was wrong.  That's the song for this entire cycle.

You do it to yourself.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Unbeliever on April 27, 2016, 12:18:51 PM
^ I'll be honest, almost nothing in this post makes sense to me.  Are you just venting?  I mean, don't get me wrong -- voters suck.  Elections in general do. 

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on April 27, 2016, 05:11:58 PM
Mostly venting, but yes a prediction involved.  However, let me address a couple of your points.  On the Hillary being unpopular: that is not up for debate.  She is.  Her net favorability rating is something like -25.  Trumps is the only one worse at around -40.  The only one with a positive is Sanders at something like +10.  And people have been voting for the "socialist".  Independents and progressive Democrats have been.  In contests where anyone can vote, Bernie has been winning by a lot.  In contests where only (D)s can vote, he's been losing...by not a lot.  Almost all of Clinton's lead has been through early voting.  Sanders almost beat her election day in NC, and DID beat her on election day in AZ, MO, and IL.  So even though she "has more votes"* it's much more complicated than that.  So...in the elections where a larger portion of the demographics of the country can vote, he's been winning, and in the ones where there's a biased portion of the electorate voting he's been losing.

And the country is right leaning....kind of.  Until you look at actual preferences of policies.  Most progressive policies are well received by a majority of Americans, and most conservative ones aren't.  We have one of the worst turnouts in the developed world.  And Sanders has been getting first time voters out where he can (re: open state primaries).  In states where turnout is large, he wins.  I repeat for effect:  in states where turnout is large, he wins.  This is decidedly not just young people.  It's also people who haven't voted because they've had no candidate.  So yes.  There is a rather significant portion of progressives out there that is untapped.

As for the labels?  Obama is left of center.  Hillary is at best dead center.  And that's for American spectrum of politics.  She's way too hawkish to be considered a liberal.  She's espoused support for a LOT of conservative view points over the years, so I am very skeptical of this new, more progressive Hillary**.  Going simply by her campaign statements, over the past two months at least (but not the months before that!  She's changed positions on a large number of topics as Sanders has been catching up!), she's fairly progressive, almost halfway to where Sanders is.  I don't trust for an instant though that she's going to keep these views in the General, much less her presidency.  And my point in the previous post was that this is a humongous problem.  In an election defined by lack of trust in the establishment, pivoting to the center might well be a death knell.  Also my point, is that do not make the mistake of assuming this anti-establishment uprising is confined to the clown car that was the RNC primaries, it exists in the left as well.

As many have noted, Obama has not been a true progressive.  He's been fairly progressive, but he did walk back some of his more progressive agenda topics.  Some for legitimate reasons (like the conservative and hostile House and Senate he's had to deal with) and some not so legitimate reasons (simply not doing it).

*She doesn't have more votes.  It's impossible to tell.  Even though she's beating him in voting primary votes, she's lost nearly every caucus (or every one? I forget which ones were caucuses).  And caucus votes are not tallied directly.  So we don't know how many people voted one way or another in the various caucus states, directly.  We do know that they've tended to have record turnout, and Sanders has won those.

**Do I think Hillary will be a bad president?  No.  I do not.  I think she is dangerous to elect, not because of what she will do to the country, but what lesson it will teach the DNC and the electorate about the process, and progressive ideals.  I believe we are in a dangerous time, and at a turning point.  We are not about to fall backwards, no, but we are in danger of doing some things that we as a country will regret later down the line.  I do not think Hillary will be the cause of these things.  I simply think her election might precipitate some of these things later on.  This election's problem isn't the next four years.  It's the fours years after that.  And I believe that nominating Sanders would prevent the problems of those four years.

In summary, I really really really hope Hillary is now a progressive.  Because if she's not, the DNC just lost a lot of elections.  And that is bad for our country because the people that will be winning those elections are the Todd Youngs of the world.  Who's Todd Young those of you outside of Indiana?  He's Cruz, but worse.  He's probably going to be the next Senator from Indiana.  Sanders was the best thing to happen to the DNC in a long time, and they had better not waste it.

EDIT: On Clinton pivoting to the "center"?  Well, there's already evidence that she's going to do it.  Another reason I don't trust her not to do it.  Up until the Michigan primary, the Flint crisis was her number 1 top priority.  Then....nothing.  Nothing more about it.  Sanders keeps bringing up drinking water issues, but she hasn't.  She also spoke at AIPAC.  Also known as the conservative war hawk's wet dream convention.  And got a standing ovation.  After spouting peace talk. Then she's abandoned it.  I don't know her stance on a number of things because it's changed so much so recently.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on April 27, 2016, 05:42:07 PM
My entire region of the state voted
for Hillary and ?random in '08 ...
but this year went Trump and Bernie.

I mean they still had Hillary and ?Random
to choose from, but went completely different.
 :pie
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Libertad on April 27, 2016, 09:49:55 PM
The problem with electing judges is that you end up getting demagogues and yahoos with little to no legal experience running and getting a lot of votes because of it.

Take North Carolina, for instance. We let our State Supreme Court justices run for office like Senators and Governors. We ended up getting a lot of fundamentalist Christians running who believed that the First Amendment applied to only Christians and Jews because they define "freedom of religion" as being the sole province of the Abrahamic God. Muslims, Druze, and other Abrahamic monotheists don't count because reasons.

Talk about an education failure (on their part).

It's also propaganda, too. Lots of folks regard Muslims as the enemy post-9/11, and it's generally not imagined that the people you want to kill are worshiping the same god as you. Heck, we did this for Jews back in medieval times with rationalizations like "they were once favored by God, but then they sold out Jesus and became godless" and stuff like that.

Granted, there's a lot of fundies who are unwilling and unknowing to confront their religious similarities, but there's a lot of conservative Christians among the military and intelligence communities, too.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Unbeliever on April 28, 2016, 09:01:38 AM
Mostly venting, but yes a prediction involved.  However, let me address a couple of your points.  On the Hillary being unpopular: that is not up for debate.  She is.  Her net favorability rating is something like -25.  Trumps is the only one worse at around -40.
Vent away.  In my opinion politics is a rough, frustrating business. 

In my defense, I feel like I've said absolutely nothing about Hillary's popularity.  So, beat me up on the stupid crap I say (of which there is no doubt plenty).  Not the stupid crap I don't say.

The only one with a positive is Sanders at something like +10.  And people have been voting for the "socialist".  Independents and progressive Democrats have been.  In contests where anyone can vote, Bernie has been winning by a lot. 
In the Democratic primary.  Primaries are a narrow subset of the electorate.  It is hard to overstate how big a deal this is.  On top of that, the Democratic Primary involves lopping off the rightward-leaning side of the spectrum.  Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure all/most states with open primaries (i.e., you can vote regardless of party affiliation) still only allow you to vote once.  Right-leaning people mostly vote in the GOP election, it's (a) much closer and less decided, and (b) the one that matters to them. 

So, when you say "Independents" you mean "Independents on the left side of the spectrum."  Further, you mean "among primary voters."  That's a really big difference.

We have one of the worst turnouts in the developed world.  And Sanders has been getting first time voters out where he can (re: open state primaries).  In states where turnout is large, he wins.  I repeat for effect:  in states where turnout is large, he wins.  This is decidedly not just young people.  It's also people who haven't voted because they've had no candidate.  So yes.  There is a rather significant portion of progressives out there that is untapped.
I feel like you can just do find/replace for Sanders for Obama here.  I'm not saying these facts are untrue (although I feel like turnout has been pretty good in recent presidential elections?).  But, I fail to have noticed a massive progressive groundswell in the past 8 years.  Kind of the opposite, actually.

This posits that there are literally millions of people who think "y'know, that Obama guy just isn't doing it for me, and so rather than hold my nose and vote for him, or my local progressive candidate, I'm going to let [insert extremely conservative candidate here] run the country and/or stonewall everything."  I've seen no evidence that there are millions of people this stubborn.  It also neglects that there are thousands of people who tirelessly work to reach them.


Until you look at actual preferences of policies.  Most progressive policies are well received by a majority of Americans, and most conservative ones aren't.
I think there's a lot of truth in this.  Fiorina's "Culture War?", which presumably has been updated, makes this point.  And, while I question some of his methods, Mo's a smart guy. 

This kind of points to my own personal assessment of things.  I don't think that there are tons of very left-leaning people out there who are just chomping at the bit to vote for a Sanders or someone similar.  I do think that there is a lot of room for persuasion in the electorate, though, especially once you get out of the passionate, ideologically-driven primary voters.  These are subtle distinctions, but it does really affect what you'd think is the right strategy and also the rhetoric used.  I'll admit that I find the idea that there's a sleeping giant of progressives/conservatives (delete as needed) has always struck me as kind of echo-chambery. 

As for the labels?  Obama is left of center.  Hillary is at best dead center.  And that's for American spectrum of politics.  She's way too hawkish to be considered a liberal.  She's espoused support for a LOT of conservative view points over the years, so I am very skeptical of this new, more progressive Hillary**. 
I feel like I addressed this in earlier posts, so I won't retread it.  All I'll reiterate is that there is no dead center in US politics.  It simply doesn't exist.  Clinton could be the most conservative Democrat currently around, and she'd still be substantially more liberal than the median of the Republican party, which the current GOP candidates are far to the right of anyway.  Except for Donald Trump b/c only god knows what his ideology is. 

As to the labels of "true progressive" or not, I can't speak to that.  I feel like once we start going there (a) I don't have really anything to add other than my own opinion, and (b) we're a short hop away from convening a holy synod.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on April 28, 2016, 11:04:51 AM
Quote
In my defense, I feel like I've said absolutely nothing about Hillary's popularity.  So, beat me up on the stupid crap I say (of which there is no doubt plenty).  Not the stupid crap I don't say.

Did you not say that?  You talked about her being supposedly toxic and monstrous (in a this is obviously not true sort of way).  I was expanding on that.  I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I apologize if that's not what you meant there.

But to the rest of this.

Quote
In the Democratic primary.  Primaries are a narrow subset of the electorate.  It is hard to overstate how big a deal this is.  On top of that, the Democratic Primary involves lopping off the rightward-leaning side of the spectrum.  Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure all/most states with open primaries (i.e., you can vote regardless of party affiliation) still only allow you to vote once.  Right-leaning people mostly vote in the GOP election, it's (a) much closer and less decided, and (b) the one that matters to them. 

So, when you say "Independents" you mean "Independents on the left side of the spectrum."  Further, you mean "among primary voters."  That's a really big difference.

You are right.  It does mean it's the more liberal parts of those electorates.  But...it's more complicated than that.  I'll expand a little further on.  (also I would note that up until Tuesday the RNC primary was much much less contested than the DNC primary, with Trump ahead by more that double Hillary's lead over Sanders.  And he's had to deal with more people taking votes and delegates away from him although it's very much up for debate how many of those would have actually gone to him)

Quote
I feel like you can just do find/replace for Sanders for Obama here.  I'm not saying these facts are untrue (although I feel like turnout has been pretty good in recent presidential elections?).  But, I fail to have noticed a massive progressive groundswell in the past 8 years.  Kind of the opposite, actually.

This posits that there are literally millions of people who think "y'know, that Obama guy just isn't doing it for me, and so rather than hold my nose and vote for him, or my local progressive candidate, I'm going to let [insert extremely conservative candidate here] run the country and/or stonewall everything."  I've seen no evidence that there are millions of people this stubborn.  It also neglects that there are thousands of people who tirelessly work to reach them.

Again, you are right.  You can mostly swap Sanders for Obama here.  That's pretty much it.  That's what this whole thing makes no sense for me.  Sanders is the Obama of this cycle.  But turnout is lower in the closed primaries.  Sanders has been breaking records in the same places Obama has been.  Sanders has been winning states where Obama did.  Here's the thing.  Obama was the progressive candidate in that election! But there's been "voting irregularities" in certain primaries.  Chicago's got some people even going to jail for these things.  Turnout has been low in these places, like Arizona where they're under investigation for voting rights abuses, especially in Arpaio country.

However, I know here where I live, we haven't had a progressive candidate.  There hasn't been one.  It's been right wing or right wing nut job.  So people aren't voting for progressive candidates?  There haven't BEEN any progressive candidates.  The first time we had a progressive candidate available for superintendent we elected her in a landslide.  The reason we'll elect a conservative in November for senate?  There is no other option.

Quote
I feel like I addressed this in earlier posts, so I won't retread it.  All I'll reiterate is that there is no dead center in US politics.  It simply doesn't exist.  Clinton could be the most conservative Democrat currently around, and she'd still be substantially more liberal than the median of the Republican party, which the current GOP candidates are far to the right of anyway.  Except for Donald Trump b/c only god knows what his ideology is. 

As to the labels of "true progressive" or not, I can't speak to that.  I feel like once we start going there (a) I don't have really anything to add other than my own opinion, and (b) we're a short hop away from convening a holy synod.

And thus we get to the crux of the issue.  See, the difference in what I'm pulling out as left/right positioning and what you are, is that I'm taking a time average and you're taking a time snapshot.  You're looking at today.  I'm looking at the past 20+ years.  This country has elected more conservative politicians over time.  And there's a LOT of discussion as to why this is so.  Hillary today is center right 20 years ago.  On some issues.  On some she says she has, she's far left.  Whether or not you believe those positions is up to you.  Some issues she says she has today she's right of most conservatives.  Same disclaimer on the believing.  The point is, "left of conservatives in government now" doesn't say much.  The center has shifted right over the past 40 years, at least as far as people in power, with a significant acceleration of that over the past 15 years.  So yes she's left of them.  No she's not left of center.  Not historically.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on April 28, 2016, 05:41:46 PM
I only found out last week that you have elected judges.

I am completely lost on why anyone decided to politicise what was intended to be the branch of government that is independent of (direct, at least) politics.

It's not just judges ... I googled "Auditor General Pennsylvania"
and hit #10 was 4 sentences in a news article from New Years.
http://www.ydr.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/16/auditor-general-among-overlooked-2016-pa-races/78907578/
OK quick now :  Vote!
 :tongue
And I'm the one guy actually looking for it, sheepish I didn't know about it.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: linklord231 on April 28, 2016, 06:43:06 PM
I kind of like the way we do it in Colorado.  Judges are nominated by a non-partisan committee of both lawyers and laypeople, then those nominations are put forth to the Governor and he appoints from them.  Every few years (exact length is determined by their position), the people vote whether to "retain" or "not retain" each individual judge. 

This way, judges aren't "elected" as such, but the people can still vote to remove them if they're doing a bad job.  To be fair though, I can't think of a single time where we've voted to not retain a particular judge.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on April 29, 2016, 07:27:44 PM
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/29/clinton-camp-says-shes-been-forced-left-enough-already

I can't make this shit up.   :twitch
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 01, 2016, 12:35:23 AM
btw, when I said I have no choice for Senate earlier?  This is the better of the two (R) options I have. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/indiana-senate-candidate-paid-relative-170k-for-past-campaign-work/2016/04/30/abd8af96-0ef3-11e6-8ab8-9ad050f76d7d_story.html)

The other one somehow combines most of the worst aspects of Trump AND Cruz into one candidate.  Our (D) candidate isn't a good campaigner, and IN typically votes (R) blindly in down ticket votes.  Oh, and no legitimate third party candidate of course.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on May 01, 2016, 04:13:24 PM
Anyone heard anything about a move to unseat Rince Priebus?  I keep seeing it out there, but not on any site I'd trust.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 01, 2016, 04:15:35 PM
Nothing legitimate. Just ravings from anti-establishment types.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Unbeliever on May 01, 2016, 05:07:58 PM
btw, when I said I have no choice for Senate earlier?  This is the better of the two (R) options I have. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/indiana-senate-candidate-paid-relative-170k-for-past-campaign-work/2016/04/30/abd8af96-0ef3-11e6-8ab8-9ad050f76d7d_story.html)

The other one somehow combines most of the worst aspects of Trump AND Cruz into one candidate.  Our (D) candidate isn't a good campaigner, and IN typically votes (R) blindly in down ticket votes.  Oh, and no legitimate third party candidate of course.
You have my sympathy and empathy.  Just a couple of years ago I was living in Texas ...
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on May 01, 2016, 10:28:35 PM
Taking a look at the likely Senate candidates here, they're both acceptable.  The Republican is Pro-Choice, Pro-gay marriage, the Democrat has a Purple Heart.  I'm shockingly fine with either outcome.   :twitch  I think that's a first.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 01, 2016, 10:56:52 PM
That's good for a change.  I'd love to see more actual choice in all the elections....Or at least no more FPTP and no more political gerrymandering.  Like, let's start using math!  Math doesn't take sides...
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 02, 2016, 07:43:54 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670

So....this is a thing.....
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on May 02, 2016, 09:01:48 PM
Man, its almost like she learned politics in Chicago.  Oh, wait!  She did.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 02, 2016, 09:12:57 PM
They....they admit to doing something illegal!  They say they're "holding on to money to give later on".  That....that's not their money!  It was donated to state parties!  They admit to running illegal ads for fundraising!  "It's not supporting/anti-supporting a candidate" is not a valid defense when the ads say "stop this person!"
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 03, 2016, 10:20:14 AM
Currently getting ready to vote in the IN primary.  I'll be leaving in about 15 minutes.  Thankfully it's finals week and I don't have any today!

There's two races that actually matter/I care about that I could theoretically vote in, but they're on separate tickets.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Unbeliever on May 03, 2016, 10:22:37 AM
Best of luck on finals!

This stuff happens every single campaign cycle.  Part of it is probably due to the complexity of our campaign finance laws.  Part the built-in paralysis of the FEC.  If you build a watchdog that's deliberately toothless, people aren't stupid enough to treat it as effective.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing, it's just not shocking.  Being an election law attorney is a full-time job. 

"It's not supporting/anti-supporting a candidate" is not a valid defense when the ads say "stop this person!"
To be fair, the Supreme Court has adopted this position for about a decade ... see FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL II) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/06-969P.ZO). 

The relevant bit is that ads that mention candidates can still be considered "issue ads" and so not covered by various campaign finance rules (the fact that they were meant they were unconstitutional and struck down), and the standard CJ Roberts articulated was extremely favorable to the ad. 
Quote from: Majority Opinion
In light of these considerations, a court should find that an ad is the functional  equivalent of express advocacy only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate. Under this test, WRTLís three ads are plainly not the functional equivalent of express advocacy. First, their content is consistent with that of a genuine issue ad:  The ads focus on a legislative issue, take a position on the issue, exhort the public to adopt that position, and urge the public to contact public officials with respect to the matter. Second, their content lacks indicia of express advocacy: The ads do not mention an election, candidacy, political party, or challenger; and they do not take a position on a candidateís character, qualifications, or fitness for office.
Although this Supreme Court has been almost monomaniacally committed to destroying the asinine system of campaign finance laws we (used to) have.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 03, 2016, 11:40:08 AM
And voted.  As usual, my precinct was fairly empty.  Not a lot of people live in it, also I was early so yeah.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 03, 2016, 09:59:27 PM
Donald Trump is the Republican nominee for president.

Cruz dropped out.  No candidate can unseat Trump now.  He will get to 1237 before the convention.  He's at 1100 now, and he'll get at least 100 in California.  There's what, 10 left?  He can't fail to get that.  Like, unless he gets less than 20% of the vote in each one remaining.  A new Rasmussen poll shows him leading in the general election against Hillary by 2 points.

Sanders wins Indiana though!
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on May 03, 2016, 10:19:44 PM
Donald Trump is the Republican nominee for president.

Cruz dropped out.  No candidate can unseat Trump now.  He will get to 1237 before the convention.  He's at 1100 now, and he'll get at least 100 in California.  There's what, 10 left?  He can't fail to get that.  Like, unless he gets less than 20% of the vote in each one remaining.  A new Rasmussen poll shows him leading in the general election against Hillary by 2 points.

Sanders wins Indiana though!

There's more good news in this.  With Trump now confirmed as the winner of his side, their race is all but over.  No longer will we have the 24/7 coverage of "look how close the GOP race is" when the far closer Dem race goes ignored.  The actual close race will actually need to be addressed!  All the Anti-Trump votes on the GOP side no longer can stop Trump, and may cross to help stop Trump in the general by voting in Sanders. 

I've suspected Anti-Trump GOP votes have been acting as spoilers for Sanders.  Perhaps now those independents-leaning-right and Republicans will come to us.

We can do this!  Guam is next!  5/7, Guam, are you ready!?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 03, 2016, 10:29:27 PM
Also, the crazy evangelical handily won the senate primary here.  Todd Young.  He's going to probably be the next Indiana senator.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on May 06, 2016, 06:38:33 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279039-fbi-interview-with-clinton-could-be-in-days

Storm's a'brewin.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 06, 2016, 07:21:42 PM
Just for the record, witnesses and victims in crimes give depositions....
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 09, 2016, 12:12:01 PM
"You sue me?  No, I sue YOU!" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/05/09/north-carolina-justice-dept-face-monday-deadline-for-bathroom-bill/)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on May 10, 2016, 08:08:17 PM
can someone once again explain wth is going on in brazil from the standpoint of a local?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on May 12, 2016, 06:52:21 PM
Don't know the details, but the Brazil President is out today.
If I understand it right, she's suspended until an actual trial.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 16, 2016, 02:28:43 PM
Don't know if anyone else noticed, but Nevada....kind of asploded....It's hard getting accurate news outlet's covering of what happened, considering that WaPo's article on what happened was pretty much the exact opposite of what happened, according to multiple eye witness accounts and video of the event. I don't put Salon up there with the most prestigious of news sources, but they have it pretty much right here (https://www.salon.com/2016/05/16/what_the_hell_just_happened_in_nevada_sanders_supporters_are_fed_up_and_rightfully_so/), although not everything that happened was covered.

A quick recap: basically, the Nevada arm of the DNC voted behind closed doors to change the rules and passed it by themselves, ignoring the rules saying a vote at the convention needs to be held.  This rules change included ignoring the 2nd level of convention, which in Clark County flipped the votes for Bernie rather than Hillary.  So they retroactively took two delegates away from Bernie and gave them to Hillary.  Then they gave the chair of NV sole authority over the convention.  Then later on, at the convention, they took a vote before the convention started on how to allocate the delegates from the state level.  The chair later on called for a vote on the finalization of an inaccurate count.  Seconded it herself, passed it, asked for yays, ended the convention, and walked out.  This ignored the larger volume of 'nay' votes.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on May 17, 2016, 04:12:23 AM
You missed the part where they prevented 62 delegates from even entering the convention, and the follow up where they bullshitted that hotel security made them shut down abruptly over the raucous.   Overall, epic douchebaggery from the Dems.  They've been way better at cheating this primary than the Publicans.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Agrippa on May 17, 2016, 12:51:36 PM
Don't know if anyone else noticed, but Nevada....kind of asploded....It's hard getting accurate news outlet's covering of what happened, considering that WaPo's article on what happened was pretty much the exact opposite of what happened, according to multiple eye witness accounts and video of the event. I don't put Salon up there with the most prestigious of news sources, but they have it pretty much right here (https://www.salon.com/2016/05/16/what_the_hell_just_happened_in_nevada_sanders_supporters_are_fed_up_and_rightfully_so/), although not everything that happened was covered.

A quick recap: basically, the Nevada arm of the DNC voted behind closed doors to change the rules and passed it by themselves, ignoring the rules saying a vote at the convention needs to be held.  This rules change included ignoring the 2nd level of convention, which in Clark County flipped the votes for Bernie rather than Hillary.  So they retroactively took two delegates away from Bernie and gave them to Hillary.  Then they gave the chair of NV sole authority over the convention.  Then later on, at the convention, they took a vote before the convention started on how to allocate the delegates from the state level.  The chair later on called for a vote on the finalization of an inaccurate count.  Seconded it herself, passed it, asked for yays, ended the convention, and walked out.  This ignored the larger volume of 'nay' votes.

You missed the part where they prevented 62 delegates from even entering the convention, and the follow up where they bullshitted that hotel security made them shut down abruptly over the raucous.   Overall, epic douchebaggery from the Dems.  They've been way better at cheating this primary than the Publicans.

The DNC's excuse is that those 62 delegates hadn't registered for the Nevada Democratic convention, therefore weren't admissible. Fine then, but these delegates weren't told by the party they had to register first, they were supposed to call the Nevada Democratic party and ask if they had to register first. Of course it's natural not to think you'd have to register weeks in advance to take part in a convention you were elected to, so yeah, those delegates were and are screwed. Honestly people, this is making me consider not voting for president this year, because if Hillary Clinton wins this way I don't she deserves to be president. I don't want Trump in the White House either, but I can't bring myself to vote for a politician with no true ideas who's willing to look the other way while her party gives her the nomination dishonestly. Fuck the DNC, fuck the White House, fuck the Clinton campaign.

I have two songs picked out for the Democratic nomination, one for if Hillary wins (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn3_f30svQI) and one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHQLQ1Rc_Js) for if she loses to Sanders. You can tell how I feel about her.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 17, 2016, 01:08:25 PM
There's Jill Stein running on the Green Party ticket*, who's basically Sanders but not as...Sanders?  She's Sanders lite.  If you're going to vote on principle rather than against someone, she's probably your best bet.  And please, PLEASE vote.  Even if it's not to a major party.  Because every vote counts, even if it's for a losing candidate.  This goes for all of you.  Because if enough people vote for a 3rd party, it still sends a message, AND you can still vote down ticket to vote in preferential candidates on the house and senate and still help keep the people you don't want in, out.  And more importantly, when some douchebag says "well why didn't you vote?"  You can honestly say "I did."  And you can even say you voted your conscience instead of for the lesser of two evils.

*I suppose you have Gary Johnson running too, if you like insane people.  For those who don't know, he's basically Ron Paul but....well, he's Ron Paul lite.  Just as crazy, but with less political influence.  He's...probably the most big R Republican in the race, Sanders and Stein are the only two true liberals in the race, Clinton is the most little r republican in the race, and Trump is...Trump.  He's more liberal than Clinton on a few things, and more conservative on a few things.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: RedWarlock on May 17, 2016, 01:55:28 PM
What gets me is the "if you're not with us, you're against us" BS of some people, who feel if you vote 3rd party and their preferred candidate (i.e. Hillary) doesn't win, you have in fact voted for the enemy (Trump), and obviously hate women, minorities, etc. That is such bullying BS that I don't know how to respond.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 17, 2016, 02:22:51 PM
I totally understand it.  I wish it wasn't so, but that's how the human mind works, especially in this electoral environment.  The best thing you can do to combat it is just start changing the system.  It's slow, painful, and awkward, but it'll work eventually.  When we shift the paradigm from "only two parties ever" to "choose the best candidate" we'll be better off as a nation, as a people, as a world.

Also, of course, you could say "But I didn't want to vote for Trump, so why I vote for the candidate he's backed?" referring to how Trump supported both her and Bill earlier.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Libertad on May 17, 2016, 02:34:15 PM
Fox News goes to bat for a banned Neo-Nazi subreddit, (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/05/16/reddit-administrators-accused-censorship.html) conveniently forgets to mention this important detail.

Back before it was quarantined, /r/european was a subreddit for Europeans and Muslim-hating Americans to convene for folk who found Europe too liberal. And by "too liberal," I mean "don't believe that Arab and Hispanic immigration is a result of Communist Jews who want to genocide white people via interracial marriage."

Also, questioning the Holocaust is allowed as 'healthy debate,' but posting evidence gets you downvoted.

Given how pro-Israel Fox is, and how they have a few Jewish correspondents like Jonah Goldberg, I can't see how they'd-

Nope, they did it. Well, at least they forgot to mention that /r/european's pro-white supremacy, but sneakily deflected it by saying "most political subreddits talk about Hitler at some point in time."

Whelp, when the current GOP base is a dying breed, you've got to appeal to the younger "alt-right" crowd. Even if said crowd would give Bill O'Reilly a heart attack if he knew what they were really up to.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Nanshork on May 17, 2016, 03:02:12 PM
Please remember, if a third party gets enough of the vote (I don't remember the percentage) then they will become an officially recognized third party and get all kinds of benefits instead of just being a fringe group.

THAT is the reason to vote third party (because the way things are right now third party can't win a presidential election, as a third party person I recognize this).
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on May 17, 2016, 06:38:28 PM
Bernie is technically still officially 3rd party (-ish)
but who knows what backroom deal was made,
to allow him on the Dem Ballot.

Libertarians got ballot access in 45 states for the '08 Prez election.

3rd party swung the notorious Florida election for Prez '00.
Poor Al Gore, not enough stones to see it all the way through.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Unbeliever on May 18, 2016, 11:32:45 AM
I totally understand it.  I wish it wasn't so, but that's how the human mind works, especially in this electoral environment.  The best thing you can do to combat it is just start changing the system.  It's slow, painful, and awkward, but it'll work eventually.  When we shift the paradigm from "only two parties ever" to "choose the best candidate" we'll be better off as a nation, as a people, as a world.
With first past the post voting -- i.e., non-proportional voting -- there will be 2 parties that are in contention.  It's not some personal failing or psychological issue or some dumb American thing.  It's a natural consequence of the voting system.  Even advocating for a third party to be recognized means you really just want to replace one of the 2 major parties. 

I know that sounds entirely declarative, and it is, but just b/c this is a really well-established finding in the field of political science and economics. 

There are pros and cons to FPP vs. other voting systems, which we can talk about later, but unless you change the voting system, you're going to see 2 "big tent" parties. 

Call me a bully if you like -- although I think that's unwarranted -- but I can't see the logic behind voting for a 3rd party candidate in a contested presidential election (i.e., if it's close in your state, if it's not, then signaling your feelings one way or another carries little cost).  It entails handing the presidency over to someone on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum in the very attenuated hopes of a party realignment.  There are other, more effective and less costly ways of effecting party realignment. 

As a side note, the big tent parties means that almost nobody is truly happy with them.  They are fragile compromise coalitions.  This goes double for people who are deeply invested in politics, as they tend to be preference outliers. 
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 18, 2016, 12:43:29 PM
I was referring to the "not with=against" thing.  But it does apply to FPTP voting, it's why FPTP voting fails so often.  And I would like to point out that other nations have more than two parties in FPTP style voting, but would append that with the fact that their 'younger' and eventually, given no change in style of voting, it'll be whittled down to a mere two parties.

And for the bit about voting 3rd party to replace a major party?  Well, kind of.  My goal would be to break up the two parties, and this is the easiest way.  After that is broken, we can start working on a better voting system.  But until it is, we can't.

Her in IN, it will likely not be contested, and if it is, it won't matter anyways.  We almost never matter in an election.  And I refuse to vote for someone who will hurt me and my fellow man, and I will almost certainly never vote for someone who has personally insulted me, and I will vote my conscience, and I will vote for the best candidate.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on May 18, 2016, 08:21:28 PM
I was referring to the "not with=against" thing.  But it does apply to FPTP voting, it's why FPTP voting fails so often.  And I would like to point out that other nations have more than two parties in FPTP style voting, but would append that with the fact that their 'younger' and eventually, given no change in style of voting, it'll be whittled down to a mere two parties.

And for the bit about voting 3rd party to replace a major party?  Well, kind of.  My goal would be to break up the two parties, and this is the easiest way.  After that is broken, we can start working on a better voting system.  But until it is, we can't.

Her in IN, it will likely not be contested, and if it is, it won't matter anyways.  We almost never matter in an election.  And I refuse to vote for someone who will hurt me and my fellow man, and I will almost certainly never vote for someone who has personally insulted me, and I will vote my conscience, and I will vote for the best candidate.

The United Kingdom is younger? Wow.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 18, 2016, 08:30:27 PM
In terms of this type of politics yes, and you aren't even in the same type of elections system as us, your prime minister isn't elected.  And, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you primarily two parties as well?  Like, India.  India's been on its own for what, 50 years?  They have a lot of parties.  And it's getting smaller.  Some places have seemingly stabilized at 3, but without changing things really, I think it'll be reduced to 2 eventually.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on May 18, 2016, 08:36:15 PM
In terms of this type of politics yes, and you aren't even in the same type of elections system as us, your prime minister isn't elected.  And, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you primarily two parties as well?  Like, India.  India's been on its own for what, 50 years?  They have a lot of parties.  And it's getting smaller.  Some places have seemingly stabilized at 3, but without changing things really, I think it'll be reduced to 2 eventually.

... you do realise that Great Britain (the UK came later) had FPTP voting in 1707 and two (vague, but later solidified) parties? Then we got even more parties later on. And lost them. And regained. Rather active, this. :lmao

Also, you're correct, the PM isn't directly elected. And it is primarily two parties, though the identity of the second party has changed repeatedly (Tories are remarkably resilient, though; 309 years and counting) and the previous parliament was decided by a third party, so. Basically, the GE is what would happen if you smooshed the presidential and Congress elections into one big thing.

It's still a FPTP election, though. :rolleyes

(Also, why the hell would Washington have been notably against political parties... hm...)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 18, 2016, 09:09:23 PM
But you aren't electing in the same way was my point.  Back in 1707 you still had a monarch calling the shots.  When did that stop and the monarch lose all real power?

And here in the US our political parties essentially came out of a feud between two candidates in the early 1800s.  That started the parties.  Then things got weird, and we had two, and then one went away and was replaced by the same one, then fast forward to the 60s when things got sucky.  Really you can blame Nixon for a lot of the US's electoral issues today.  A lot  of politics can be blamed on him....he cause the DNC to lose their minds and introduce superdelegates, he made the GOP the racist southerner party, you can blame the 80s on him too, and thus the 90s, just everything....
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on May 18, 2016, 09:16:41 PM
But you aren't electing in the same way was my point.  Back in 1707 you still had a monarch calling the shots.  When did that stop and the monarch lose all real power?

1689. Before the Act of Union between England and Scotland--George II tried to regain it, but... no luck. Hell, if you want to trace the biggest loss of the Monarchy's power before the Glorious Revolution: 1660, on the ascension of Charles II to the throne, after the Commonwealth and the Civil War.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 18, 2016, 09:23:25 PM
I thought the monarch still had a lot of control then?  Like until...some point after the American revolution and before WWI. My England history between those points is....hazy....
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on May 18, 2016, 09:30:46 PM
The monarch lost a lot of power as a result of the civil war (1660, when the interregnum ended); the Declaration of Right upon William III's accession established most of the monarchy's restricted powers, George II couldn't claw any back, and the USA wasted tea during the reign of George III.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on May 20, 2016, 04:19:52 PM
538's Nate Silver --- the big cheese himself --- has issued a Mea Culpa about Trump.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea of Prez Trump,
since the chance of that happening is non-Zero.

Warren Buffett has said that wouldn't impact the economy in a measureable way.
I beg to differ on historical data, but my kitty avatar don't carry water.
Trump isn't very "historical" in his approach, but his maneuvering room is limited.

The Medicare Trust Fund is going to run out during the next Prez term
and Trump wouldn't be the Heavy Thinker figuring out how to deal.
Australia Britain and Canada wave their happier health care flags.
Oldsters howl, congressional Repubs quail a bit, but stick to their plans.
Centrist Senate Dems lick their chops.

China is having a Hard Landing sooner of later, to which Trump only has bluster.

The congresional Dems are primed to use the Repub filibuster-all-the-time tactic.
Trump gets no real say so about that.  And the "bully pulpit" is massively less
effective in Trumps hands, seeing as how bully is his standard persona already.

 :??? or  :hide
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: altpersona on May 20, 2016, 04:25:45 PM
may not be the 100% perfect thread for it...

my little mayberryesqe town has decided that we need a gender based bathroom ordinance  :eh

#bandwagon

#why is violence frowned upon?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on May 21, 2016, 03:05:30 PM
Before you go in there, Hands Up !
Lemme see your "mayberries" !!

(uh "sir" how'm I supposed to do both)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51k7%2BV3YNnL._AC_UL160_SR160,160_.jpg)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 26, 2016, 01:24:26 PM
I'm curious as to what the fallout of this will be, but Clinton...absolutely broke the rules, and the FOIA.  She and her supporters maintain that she did nothing wrong, going as far as to say "this confirms what she's said about the issue" even though the new report directly contradicts things she's said about the subject.  Here's (http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fstory%2F2016%2F05%2Fhillary-clinton-emails-state-report-223574&h=-AQHtvpUI) a look a number of issues that the report raised, of particular note are the fact that it was not authorized, despite her claims, and it was unique, despite her claims.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Libertad on May 26, 2016, 03:35:27 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/mWRgx6i.jpg)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on May 27, 2016, 03:26:24 PM
 :scared ... Trump clinched last night.  Some of the PA superdelegates got on board.


Hope the Bernie v Trump debate happens (see below).
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 28, 2016, 09:38:58 PM
After thinking about it long and hard, here's the chances I think of the various people in the race right now to become president of the USA next year, as rough percentages.

Trump: 50%
Clinton: 25%
Sanders:20%
Paul Ryan: 5%

Yes, I have Ryan as a non-zero win chance.  Because of a complicated thing called "everything explodes".  Essentially, Gary Johnson takes one state, really any state, but the bigger the more likely this happens.  And the more states the more likely.  But I think he only has any shot in one or two states at most.  Anyways, then he 'blows up' the electoral map in such a way that there's no winner, as in no one gets to 270, and the House decides the next president, they choose Ryan.  I think that percentage is lower than 5, but non zero so i put it as 5.

If Sanders is nominated by the DNC, I have it at 80% Sanders as president, 20% Trump.  Notice: no chance for Ryan.

If Clinton is the nominee, I have it at 65%  Trump, 30% Clinton, and 5% Ryan.  I may be underselling Trump's chances in this one though.  I...I think I'm resigned to a Trump presidency.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Samwise on May 28, 2016, 11:58:36 PM
Yes, I have Ryan as a non-zero win chance.  Because of a complicated thing called "everything explodes".  Essentially, Gary Johnson takes one state, really any state, but the bigger the more likely this happens.  And the more states the more likely.  But I think he only has any shot in one or two states at most.  Anyways, then he 'blows up' the electoral map in such a way that there's no winner, as in no one gets to 270, and the House decides the next president, they choose Ryan.  I think that percentage is lower than 5, but non zero so i put it as 5.

They (the House) cannot do that.
Because of a not-so-complicated thing called "the actual text of the Constitution.

If your scenario happens,
Quote
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority,

the House does not have an open election of whoever they like. Rather,
Quote
then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

which in this case would mean they have to pick from Trump OR Clinton OR Johnson.

You would need to get thoroughly bizarre and invoke this:
Quote
If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

for Ryan to somehow be selected by the House. That however would require:
1. A tie or 3 people getting electoral votes; AND,
2. The House being "unable" to select a President; AND,
3. The Senate being "unable" to select a Vice-President; AND,
4. Paul Ryan winning re-election (which is not guaranteed at this point); AND,
5. Neither the House nor the Senate deciding to bypass Ryan whenever they feel like it by "suddenly" agreeing on a President or Vice-President

At which point you may as well just skip to whoever is elected, along with their running mate, not being physically or mentally capable of serving on inauguration day, and Ryan being re-elected, after being retained as Speaker, in which case he would outright become President without any need for a vote. (Though he could turn it down if he felt like it.)

While theoretically that is a non-zero chance, it is more obscure trivia than a betting line.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 29, 2016, 12:40:28 AM
I meant to imply that they have Ryan running to allow this to happen, apologies if it didn't come across like that.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Samwise on May 29, 2016, 01:00:39 AM
So somehow Trump wouldn't be running?
Then you wouldn't need any third party getting electoral votes at all.

Or do you mean Ryan running independently?
In which case Johnson getting electoral votes is irrelevant, as Ryan would need to get more to be considered anyway.

Both are still more in the realm of trivia than actual percentiles.

You have however forgotten to account for Biden showing up to "save" the election when "someone" is indicted the night before the convention opens.
There's a much better chance of that happening than Paul Ryan somehow pulling a Jack Ryan. He just isn't that big a Marty Stu for anyone.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on May 29, 2016, 01:16:23 AM
With Gary Johnson in all 50 states this time around, and him being brought up more often as the anti-trump, I wouldn't tun another third party at all if I were republican.  Polls (probably useless at this stage admittedly) show Johnson siphoning up 10% of the popular vote, and the likelihood being he'll get it from trump hating republicans and disgruntled sanders supporters.  He won't make it to the presidency, but he could conceivably take electoral votes, though it's a long shot for him.

It'll be weird this time out with both candidates being hated more than they're liked. Could come down to which sides voters stay home the least.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 29, 2016, 02:41:30 AM
I don't think Biden wants it.  If Hillary gets indicted before the convention, it'll be Sanders with the nomination.

And you don't need to get a specific number of electoral votes to be considered for the House election.  You just need a certain amount of the vote iirc.  There's a LOT of crazy things that might happen in this situation.  And my "Ryan" winning was mostly based on the rumors from a month or two ago that he was being vetted as a possibility to do this, so it's more tongue in cheek than not, however, replace 'Ryan' with whichever person gets that nod.  It may be Johnson even. Who knows.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Samwise on May 29, 2016, 11:58:08 AM
Biden wants it. It was obvious in his last statement about how he would have been a great candidate, he just wasn't "ready" at the time.
More importantly, Bronco wants it, just because he hates the Clintons.
And however much Sanders may want it, that pales before what the DNC wants.

As for Johnson and the Republican vote, I know it is popular to confuse Liberturdians with Republicans, especially since people like to leap back and forth to get elected and "demonstrate their values" and such, but the two are vastly different. Even the big surge of NeverTrumpers are having to twist themselves into knots to justify some of the drivel coming from Johnson and now Weld. The fact that they even need to contemplate Johnson demonstrates that they know there is no one ready to spring into action to save them from the evil that is The Donald.

As for Johnson pulling 10% of the vote, not even in his pipe dreams. The "constitutionalists" will just stay home and mope or leave that line blank. Disappointed Bernistas will do the same or vote for Stein on the Green line, as despite the hardcore of Rothbardian Anarchists and Stoner Libertines within the liberturdian movement, and their attempts at outreach, they simply aren't attracting the "ordinary" "democratic-socialist" types who are the Bernistas likely to be outraged enough in their disgruntlement to cast protest ballots. They can't - they love their capitalism too much, and that is a deal breaker, no matter how much drug legalization and open borders they promise.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Nanshork on May 29, 2016, 12:05:53 PM
Please don't start insulting the libertarian party (or any entire party for that matter), shit like that is why I never got involved in the politics threads until this one and things have been civil until now.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on May 29, 2016, 12:23:25 PM
There are libertarians, and then there are "libertarians".  Johnson is a libertarian.  Rand Paul is a "libertarian".  But yeah,please don't start disparaging parties, keep things civil.

Biden doesn't want it.  He left it open, kind of, but he really doesn't want it.  I think he's retiring from politics after he leaves the VP.  He'll be in advisory role mostly, but I don't think he's running another campaign ever.

Sanders didn't even really want it.  He doesn't care about becoming president, he wants his platform pushed forward because he thinks the DNC has lost its way, he's trying to bring real progressive policies back into the national discussion, a la FDR.  He's also trying to bring a diplomatic foreign policy back into things and trying to get us to shy away from war.

I'd like to see a bigger national discussion of the other parties, so I'd like to see both Johnson and Stein get an appreciable share of the vote, which I think can happen this election.  Johnson definitely, and Stein if Clinton's the nominee

Personally, I heartily disagree with Johnson (and most all Libertarian candidates) on a lot of issues, but of course, I'm a progressive so I like their social policies typically.  Incidentally, this is why Rand is a 'libertarian' and not a libertarian.  He's socially (moderate) conservative and hardcore economically conservative.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Samwise on May 29, 2016, 01:01:57 PM
Rand Paul is a Rothbardian Anarchist, just like his father.
His "hardcore" economic conservatism extends only so far as needed to eliminate government completely. Once that is done he is like every other "libertarian" "anarchist", and believes in using government "force" to prevent people from engaging in economic activity that he doesn't like.
The only "difference" is that he is trying to outreach to the "traditional" "anarchists", rather than sticking with the conspiracy theorist and racist fringe that his father ran with.

Johnson is more of a "small government" international socialist with libertine tendencies than a "Libertarian".
He loves his open borders and drug legalization, but he has said several times he is on board with suppressing religious freedom, and freedom of association in general, in pursuit of "equality".

Neither represents the "classical liberalism" that the word "Libertarian" is supposed to stand for. Between them and the constant splinter groups that are more dominionist than anything else, there is nothing in the term for me to respect anymore.

Biden does want it, he is just not in a position to get it without receiving it as a gift. He knows it, and that's why he is willing to play the role to see if he can get it.

As for the Libertarians or the Greens getting any bigger share, it won't happen.
It has been predicted regularly since the Dixiecrats failed, and except for Ross Perot making a splash has never happened. And even with Perot his support was fading rapidly. Another month and he wouldn't even be a footnote in electoral history.
No matter how much media attention there is about the further fringes during primary season, they disappear into side issues once the conventions pass, simply because no one currently in power has any intention of letting it pass to one of those groups.
Even if the parties fracture, or undergo a significant realignment, which does seem possible, it won't be around the issues those groups want, but around more centrist issues that both parties have messed up on.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on May 29, 2016, 04:26:52 PM
Normally I would agree with Johnson not having a chance due to being a fringe candidate, but technically Trump is a sort of fringe candidate who got lucky and demagogued his way into the nomination (not that teh RNC's fumbling didn't help).  He's the only reason Johnson polls well, because a lot of people reason "Trump is a neo-fascist who tells people what they want to hear, not a Republican or even a conservative.  And I can't vote for Hillary, so short of setting the election out Johnson is the least of three evils, especially since he'll likely be a one term guy."   I've tried explaining why that is somewhat flawed but they hate Hillary and Donald so much it's like talking to mannequins...
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on May 29, 2016, 10:05:14 PM
http://gawker.com/stripping-libertarian-candidate-exercises-right-to-bare-1779427600   :lol
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on May 31, 2016, 02:43:44 PM
I guess the Republicans are more for liberty this year with nominating that orange fella.  I would have thought Libertarians would like a gun show.   :D
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on May 31, 2016, 04:55:01 PM
Popular vote has not picked the Prez in 1800 , 1824 , 1876 and 1888.

In 2000, Florida could have said themselves
or have had legally ruled by courts (~outside)
that they didn't have solid results to award.
Supremes jumped the gun on that regard.

Hastert would have had the tough decision of whether to
a) ... become Prez for that 1 vote and give up his seat and speakership
b1) ... keep seat/speakership, be not the Prez for the 1 vote, causing kick over to
b2) ... President Strom Thurmond via Pro Tempore for the 1 vote
b3) ... would good ol' Strom even remember the whole episode?

Then the 28 states would vote Bush prez anyway,
while the Senate goes 50/50 and the outgoing VPrez
gets to break the tie = VPrez Liebermann.

Ya rilly ... this isn't how that history is usually presented, so says my kitty avatar.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on May 31, 2016, 04:58:41 PM
http://gawker.com/stripping-libertarian-candidate-exercises-right-to-bare-1779427600   :lol

Italy has had a few of those too.

[dude voice]

Uhh ... what are we  :love voting for ?
[/dude voice]
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on May 31, 2016, 11:01:02 PM
This could be interesting: Stein has apparently made an offer to bernie to run on her ticket so he doesn't need to worry about rnning as a 3rd party guy.  And Bill Kristol will be pushing David French as an indie candidate as well.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on June 01, 2016, 04:03:25 PM
 :)

Trump got endorsed by North Korea.

Glen Beck got suspended for having a "white patriot" suggest something, the secret service goes ape about, and agreeing with it.  Death panels you say?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: phaedrusxy on June 01, 2016, 04:11:37 PM
:)

Trump got endorsed by North Korea.
Oh my god... I thought this had to be a joke... until I googled it!  :o :twitch
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on June 01, 2016, 04:19:59 PM
Weellllllllllllllllllllll ... technically NK flip-flopped
from their p.o.v. of just a few weeks ago.

They like what he's said about getting the
USA out of South Korea.  That makes sense.
Now whether DT meant what he said , or 
meant-what-he-said-at-that-moment pending
the usual circularcircularity.

 :bs  and/or :joystick
It is unprecedented.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on June 01, 2016, 06:58:00 PM
China kind of half-assed endorsed him too.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on June 02, 2016, 04:09:38 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/trump-delegates-patriot-movement-militias

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/31/media/glenn-beck-suspension-siriusxm/

Whatever happened to being able t disagree with people without wanting them dead?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on June 02, 2016, 05:47:04 PM
 :clap post # 12345 Bhu.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on June 06, 2016, 06:04:42 PM
Looks like French has bowed out
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on June 07, 2016, 05:11:42 PM
AP reported last night, some more of the supers went Hillary after Puerto Rico, so it's over. 
The headlines almost write themselves ("headlines").

SuperVirgins put Clinton On Top

VirginIslands love Clinton(s)

etc
Anyway, the vote today still matters.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on June 08, 2016, 01:01:36 AM
theyre now saying it may take several days to declare california
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on June 09, 2016, 06:14:20 PM
Welp, there goes my theory that Obama was opposing Clinton in the background.  Obama endorsed Clinton.

Too bad Obama, but I'll sink his legacy along with the Hilltanic if need be. I just hope this doesn't mean he'll get in the way of any FBI investigation. Speaking of which, superdelegate Comey needs to step it up. I don't want 4 years of indictments, impeachments, and gridlock while progressives die.

theyre now saying it may take several days to declare california

That's interesting, any word on this?  I need a little bit of good news, now that it seems we're locked into the bad future route.  Do I want the slow death or the quick death?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on June 09, 2016, 06:26:19 PM
Welp, there goes my theory that Obama was opposing Clinton in the background.  Obama endorsed Clinton.

Because clearly he should hand Trumpy the presidency by not even trusting his own party's chosen nomination? Really.

Quote
Too bad Obama, but I'll sink his legacy along with the Hilltanic if need be. I just hope this doesn't mean he'll get in the way of any FBI investigation. Speaking of which, superdelegate Comey needs to step it up. I don't want 4 years of indictments, impeachments, and gridlock while progressives die.

Progressive: the most vague political label ever. @_@

Quote
theyre now saying it may take several days to declare california

That's interesting, any word on this?  I need a little bit of good news, now that it seems we're locked into the bad future route.  Do I want the slow death or the quick death?

I think it's just because it has a lot of stuff that needs counting.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on June 09, 2016, 06:30:55 PM
Normally, you may be right, though I will say that the primaries aren't over yet.  Still, seems clear cut right? 

The only thing is the FBI thing though.  I dunno, I think I'd hold off until everything is completed before I do endorsements.  Obama's done a lot of questionable stuff in the past which I gave him a pass for, because usually it was Republicans forcing his hand or blocking things, but no one forced him to endorse now.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Unbeliever on June 09, 2016, 08:41:18 PM
The only thing is the FBI thing though.  I dunno, I think I'd hold off until everything is completed before I do endorsements.  Obama's done a lot of questionable stuff in the past which I gave him a pass for, because usually it was Republicans forcing his hand or blocking things, but no one forced him to endorse now.
Whatever your judgment on what should be done, the odds of an indictment seem spectacularly low to me.  I'd be willing to wager good money against it. 
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on June 09, 2016, 08:42:20 PM
Welp, there goes my theory that Obama was opposing Clinton in the background.  Obama endorsed Clinton.

Too bad Obama, but I'll sink his legacy along with the Hilltanic if need be. I just hope this doesn't mean he'll get in the way of any FBI investigation. Speaking of which, superdelegate Comey needs to step it up. I don't want 4 years of indictments, impeachments, and gridlock while progressives die.

theyre now saying it may take several days to declare california

That's interesting, any word on this?  I need a little bit of good news, now that it seems we're locked into the bad future route.  Do I want the slow death or the quick death?

Was declared for Hillary next day, with the usual shenanigans of people being kicked off polls on dem side only, machines not working, polls not being opened etc.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on June 09, 2016, 09:20:52 PM
As far as indictments, I don't think it's "if" so much as "how much".  This is going to be a RICO case for sure.  But I speak about recommendation for indictment.  The DoJ might sit on their ass and do nothing.  Wasn't sure if you thought there was a nothingburger here Unbeliever, or that there is stuff but justice won't be served.

Welp, there goes my theory that Obama was opposing Clinton in the background.  Obama endorsed Clinton.

Too bad Obama, but I'll sink his legacy along with the Hilltanic if need be. I just hope this doesn't mean he'll get in the way of any FBI investigation. Speaking of which, superdelegate Comey needs to step it up. I don't want 4 years of indictments, impeachments, and gridlock while progressives die.

theyre now saying it may take several days to declare california

That's interesting, any word on this?  I need a little bit of good news, now that it seems we're locked into the bad future route.  Do I want the slow death or the quick death?

Was declared for Hillary next day, with the usual shenanigans of people being kicked off polls on dem side only, machines not working, polls not being opened etc.

In the DC rally, Sanders mentioned they are still counting.  This goes in line with another thing I heard but couldn't confirm about them still counting.  Apparently, they tried to kill it by giving out provisional to everyone and their mother.  The other thing I found out is that things will basically be counting over the next month.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on June 10, 2016, 04:22:08 AM
If Clinton gets indited will get another first, first Presidential election between two people facing criminal charges!  Because we suck, and that's what we deserve.  But the media will be like pigs in slop.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on June 10, 2016, 04:53:22 PM
Johnson + Weld on the Libertarian ticket, might actually get a Ross Perot level of attention (at some point just not right now).


Trying to think of other good things ... it should be noted
that the 3 tickets are each not anti-gay gasbaggers.
That's a rather large sea change at the National level.


edit --- the shooting in Orlando, makes me very sad.
And suggests that I am hopelessly optimistic.
 :shakefist
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Libertad on June 12, 2016, 07:02:44 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/JjMdqWF.jpg?1)

Donald Trump gets stated out as a demon in a Pathfinder supplement. (http://drivethrurpg.com/product/185114/Crawthornes-Catalog-of-Creatures-Demagogue-Demon-aka-Trump)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on June 14, 2016, 05:09:02 PM
The shooter's Dad is a native Farsi speaker but is pro-Taliban.

That is a very odd combo.
Persian + Dari + Farsi + Hazaras + Tajiks form a dialect chain, not related to the Pashto + IndoAryan languages ('cept at the 2000+ year mark).
The Pashtos are the main Taliban supporters.
Most of the other ethnic groups in Afghanistan suffered at the hands of the Taliban.

I suppose the Dad's immigration history is either fair game, or will become known and treated as fair game.
The Taliban describe themselves as being at War with abcedfgh etc, including obviously the USA.
He has described himself multiple times publicly, as pro-Taliban, as has the Imam of their specific local Mosque.
I don't understand what the problem is here.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on June 14, 2016, 07:57:09 PM
Like knowing who's paying your politicians?  Too bad! says the House. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/06/14/house-approves-koch-backed-bill-shield-donors-names/85886164/)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on June 15, 2016, 02:12:25 AM
I see the Illuminati reorganized as a SuperPAC.  Die already, scumbag Koch.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on June 16, 2016, 05:07:33 PM
The secret money thing sucks.

The intended side effect (maybe un-intended) of all that,
the international  branches of the Chamber of Commerce
started donating money right away.

Internationals outnumber and out-money the USA.
At some point it won't be just a few agitation groups.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on June 19, 2016, 12:33:45 AM
So I was a last minute delegate for Sanders in VA!  It's been a rough few days, with a big power out Thursday and chaotic schedule up til now, but we're back in action!

I recorded a bunch of things (still uploading in progress at time of posting).  I'm putting them on my Youtube if you wanna check it.  Also, the previous rally I had been to before.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-sN7bGXRuMLojB5wNi2HQBv-WL5hVuVU
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Unbeliever on June 20, 2016, 11:30:07 AM
So I was a last minute delegate for Sanders in VA!  It's been a rough few days, with a big power out Thursday and chaotic schedule up til now, but we're back in action!
Do you get to go to the convention, or is it just for VA?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on June 20, 2016, 12:25:14 PM
So I was a last minute delegate for Sanders in VA!  It's been a rough few days, with a big power out Thursday and chaotic schedule up til now, but we're back in action!
Do you get to go to the convention, or is it just for VA?

Just for VA but well worth it.  I think my recording, plus the efforts of that Jeffery dude, helped put the pressure to get us in and help even the odds some more.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on June 20, 2016, 04:18:11 PM
Rumor has ti Clarence Thomas wants to retire next year.  Can't help but wonder if it's BS meant to motivate a base turned off by Trump.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on June 20, 2016, 04:57:12 PM
It must be hard being a Supreme Court judge without Scalia telling him what to do.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on June 21, 2016, 03:12:09 PM
Having to actually talk in court has ruined the joy of it all for him.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on June 21, 2016, 05:10:38 PM
Supposedly there was an attempt on Trump's life, at his latest rally.
Dude from England, tried to grab a cop's gun.
idk any other details, they'd be tightlipped about it regardless.


The Pandora CEO was on CNBC yesterday and said
if they know your Zip Code and what kind of music you prefer
they can pick your political views with 90% accuracy.
That's amazing ... (trying to not immediately call it Wrong by inclination, but big data is big data)

Might be on this video, idk can't view right now.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFhrhv4Qm5g
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Nanshork on June 21, 2016, 05:19:32 PM
Supposedly there was an attempt on Trump's life, at his latest rally.
Dude from England, tried to grab a cop's gun.
idk any other details, they'd be tightlipped about it regardless.

There was an attempt-ish.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/21/why-isnt-the-assassination-attempt-on-donald-trump-bigger-news/
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Unbeliever on June 22, 2016, 12:06:33 AM
The Pandora CEO was on CNBC yesterday and said
if they know your Zip Code and what kind of music you prefer
they can pick your political views with 90% accuracy.
That's amazing ... (trying to not immediately call it Wrong by inclination, but big data is big data)

Might be on this video, idk can't view right now.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFhrhv4Qm5g
Honestly, zip code alone probably gives you a pretty good shot.  Add in the music tastes, which will correlate with other factors about a person that are reasonably predictive, and you're probably gonna do pretty well.  I'm pretty sure Rage Against the Machine leads to a certain political leaning.

@SolEiji
Glad the convention was edifying and that you got a chance to participate in the process.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on June 22, 2016, 06:37:12 PM
That's the one, and it looks like the dude is totally insane.


Zip would only get you to ~70% most places (my guess).
The Pandora guy did Not say his methodology.

You couldn't necessarily know a guy who listens
to some 90's Country and some more "Classic" Rock
would be Union Dem, Trump Lout, Hard Right or Non.

But big data could figure out some of that.
At least that's what the big data fanboys say.
They might be right now, or might be right later.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on June 24, 2016, 09:44:09 AM
So.....brexit huh?  Pound's already at historic lows, this was the largest drop in the economy in Britain since 1921, and things look bad.  Great job Britain!  The weirdest thing though is that it can get a lot worse if they vote to actually leave.  Because this wasn't a vote to leave, it was a poll.  For those who know nothing about this, it wasn't a vote, it was a referendum, so the parliament will take this vote into account.  Economically it's been this immediately bad and the UK is still in the EU.

And on another note about it, the leader of the movement, NIgel Douchebagface or whatever, went on GMB this morning and essentially said "Yeah, all those things we promised to do with this?  They won't happen, suckers!"
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: oslecamo on June 24, 2016, 09:51:42 AM
Cameron also announced his resignation shortly after.

Shit is getting too real.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on June 24, 2016, 10:09:42 AM
As I said a bit earlier on twitter, can we just like, as a world, have a mulligan on the past 12 months?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on June 24, 2016, 10:16:14 AM
Nobody likes Farage. Even his own party doesn't like Farage.

The FTSE decided to stop being in freefall, oddly.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: oslecamo on June 24, 2016, 10:16:25 AM
J.K. Rowlings says that two can play this game and supports Scottlandexit from the UK. (http://mashable.com/2016/06/24/jk-rowling-brexit-scottish-referendum-independence/#.c.ZsBL6J8qw)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on June 24, 2016, 10:29:54 AM
Got to love how quick the First Minister was to pretend the 950,000 people in Scotland that voted to leave don't exist and focus on the outcome per region.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: kitep on June 24, 2016, 10:50:33 AM
I thought, and still tend to think, that this Brexit thing will turn out like early US history.  Where the states at first combined to form the Articles of Confederation, saw it wasn't working, and came up with something better rather than giving up.  A unified Europe just makes too much sense when you have the likes of the US, Russia, and China on the world stage.

Though hopefully, Europe can avoid that thing we did 74 years later ...
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on June 24, 2016, 04:41:53 PM
US trade with UK is $107 billion (from wtf I found it last night).
US economy is $18,000+ billion (i.e. trillions)

Let's say UK goes into a Great Depression / Russia's end of communism / Venezuela situation
depressing it's economy by 25% (or so).
It's less of a drop for the USA than the usual
margin-of-error for 3month economic projections.
It isn't 2% , it's 1/10th of that.

I think most of the negative trading reporting
is based on the casual Bet (!) the moneyed
made that Brexit wouldn't happen. 
They bet wrong.  Causes lots of unwinding.

Weirdest result so far, the Italian Banks
are down > 20% on the days trading.
What kind of screw-ball leverage did they all do?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on June 24, 2016, 04:47:05 PM
It's not the trade that's the issue, it's being a huge financial gateway.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on June 24, 2016, 09:27:33 PM
I thought, and still tend to think, that this Brexit thing will turn out like early US history.  Where the states at first combined to form the Articles of Confederation, saw it wasn't working, and came up with something better rather than giving up.  A unified Europe just makes too much sense when you have the likes of the US, Russia, and China on the world stage.

Though hopefully, Europe can avoid that thing we did 74 years later ...

Switzerland is neutral. Switzerland is independent. Switzerland has the globe by its financial balls.

Be smart. Be like Switzerland.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on June 25, 2016, 03:00:41 PM
It's not the trade that's the issue, it's being a huge financial gateway.

Agreed.
I was US-o-centric-ing my response (should have said this first) mostly because I don't think outsiders should have a say in Sovereignty issues.
25% of US trade is with EU, and if that's gonna be in frozen + sclerotic + chaos mode for 10 years, yeah it's a problem.


 :banghead and Trump has a lovely golf course.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on June 26, 2016, 12:53:31 AM
I just had this charming "discussion"

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on June 26, 2016, 01:01:52 AM
Yer gonna lose more brain cells than it's worth lol.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on June 26, 2016, 11:12:59 AM
Question: who is the most cartoonish supervillain in politics or politics adjacent in America?  They have to be very American, or at least viewed that way.  And Trump doesn't count.  he's #1, I'm looking for #2.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on June 26, 2016, 12:08:26 PM
Is Hillary too obvious? Fine, the Westborough Baptist Church.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on June 26, 2016, 12:42:48 PM
Karl Rove?  He made 'Murican politics extra divisive all for the sake of winning.
(click to show/hide)
Dick Cheney?  Shot a friend, friend apologized.  Evil cyborg with a robot heart.
(click to show/hide)
Dick Nixon?  Do I need to elaborate?
(click to show/hide)
Hilary Clinton?  She's in the news.  And people hate her pants suits.  Chicago Democrat extraordinaire.
(click to show/hide)

Probably Tricky Dickey.  He's actually been a cartoon super villain.  Howrrroooo!
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on June 26, 2016, 12:52:30 PM
I was thinking Sarah Palin at first, but then I got to really thinking.  I'm looking for people in the Roger Goodell sort of variety.  Again though, they  have to be actual people, someone who's almost cartoonish, like Trump is.  Goodell is not a politician, but he's politics adjacent.

So an example of not cartoonish would be Cheney, villain, yes.  But not cartoonish.

Rove works for the description, I think, but he wouldn't work for what I'm thinking is going to happen.  Although maybe?  I don't think he'd work, but it's a possibility.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on June 26, 2016, 01:32:02 PM
Bill O'Reily?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on June 26, 2016, 01:59:28 PM
Hmm, maybe?  But I think he hates Trump so he won't work.

Here's my thinking: Trump is a wrestler.  Like WWE character.  He's still under kayfabe, and he's being the heel in this election.  So he needs to tag team with someone equally cartoonish, that's who his VP pick is going to be.  People say Christie because he got on, but I don't think Trump wants him, he's too insider.  Palin is Palin, so she's a possibility, ESPECIALLY to counter the 'sexism' thing he has going for him.  But it can't be someone so....normal.  And yes I'm saying that about Palin.  No, it has to be someone a WWE writer would write in to the story.  Someone ridiculous, cartoonish, and outlandish.  It has to be someone famous, someone yuge, someone on the big stage.  It has to be legal, so he can't pick Putin, otherwise he absolutely would and you all know it.  Someone equally bombastic and controversial, and universally hated.  That's why I thought Roger Goodell.  Seriously.  But I don't think Goodell would, so Trump won't even ask.  I don't think it will be a politician, but it will be someone in politics.  So one of his business partners, or adversary.

Just trying to think of that most cartoonishly fitting person is difficult.  It can't be someone obscure, but it can't be the most obvious pick (Christie, Palin). It's difficult to do this....
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on June 26, 2016, 06:01:22 PM
Rick Tyler http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/06/24/3792046/rick-tyler-tennessee-make-america-white-again/

Michele Fiore http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/05/02/3774423/michele-fiore-nevada-aim-gun-at-cops/

Todd Akin http://time.com/3001785/todd-akin-legitimate-rape-msnbc-child-of-rape/

Saxy Chambliss http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-22760944

John  Shimkus http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/03/28/37137/shimkus-plant-food/

Rick Santorum http://www.salon.com/2012/01/05/rick_santorum_flip_flops_on_black_people/

Dick Lamm http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/29/us/gov-lamm-asserts-elderly-if-very-ill-have-duty-to-die.html

Joe Barton http://grist.org/article/2009-04-20-house-republicans-bring/

Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on June 26, 2016, 07:06:44 PM
How about this guy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/18/tom-brower-hawaii_n_4299256.html)? He was even stopped by a real life group of heroes (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hawaii-state-rep-tom-brower-beaten-homeless-people-article-1.2276005)!
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: linklord231 on June 27, 2016, 03:37:52 AM
How about this guy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/18/tom-brower-hawaii_n_4299256.html)? He was even stopped by a real life group of heroes (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hawaii-state-rep-tom-brower-beaten-homeless-people-article-1.2276005)!

(http://bsc.omg-squee.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/doctor-horrible-hate-the-homeless-ness-problem.jpg)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on June 27, 2016, 05:25:13 PM
how 'bout Erdogan of Turkey
... just made nice nice with both Putin about shooting down the Russian jet in Nov, and Israel the worst of the worst of the worst of (etc, in his own words).  Yet his old ~islamist buddy Gulen is still in exile in Pennsylvania, and the Kurds are still worse than al-Qaeda offshoots.


edit ----  damngit not again
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on June 29, 2016, 05:43:19 PM
 :huh

538's Nate Silver just out with :  Hillary an 80% chance at winning.


Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Libertad on June 29, 2016, 06:07:17 PM
David Cameron's resignation speech appears on Pornhub:

(https://i.imgur.com/sPZQCig.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/rfoVF8X.png)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on June 30, 2016, 05:26:37 PM
 :lol


 :huh :twitch how did this not trigger my weeniefilter?!

 :plotting
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on July 01, 2016, 09:51:37 PM
Hmmm....who's just cartoonish enough, someone who's been in the spotlight, on the villain side of things.  Someone who a bad drama writer would write in as Trump's VP.  Christie?  No, and I can't believe I'm saying this, he's too smart.  He can't be in it with Drumpf, he's too smart to do it, and not zealotous enough to ignore it.  Gingrich?  No way, he hates Trump, and he's TOO set zealotous to fall for it.  It needs...it needs to be someone in the middle.  Not smart enough to see through things, or too zealotous to not be blinded by it, but not too dumb or too zealotous.  They need to be known, across the nation, as a villain, someone who caters to Trump's demographics, and someone diametrically opposed to the (D) nominee.  Someone who represents a contest between good and evil, change/progress with backpedaling on social issues and not capable of running an economy......











Wait, Trump met with Mike Pence?  Pence?

PENCE?????

He's perfect!  It's exactly what they would write for him to do! He's just enough of a fake martyr, he fits right in with Trump's rhetoric!  He's been a patsy, a second fiddle his entire tenure as governor!  He's been all about what Trump's been peddling the entire time, and anyone not an (R) hates him!  He's nationally known as the guy who hates fun, and puts his religion and friends above anyone else, including and especially his constituents!  He's the other heel in the tag team deathmatch championship bout!"
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 02, 2016, 01:58:24 PM
Niiiice ?
Yeah he would help Trumpf "heal" the convention, and
provide solid (if spectacularly ideological) Governance help.
Also fits Trumps m.o. of  :fu to the congress Repubs.


Pennsylvania just polled 40 / 40 , with unusually large undecideds.
That's a lot of room for the Libertarian ticket to do something (anything).
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on July 02, 2016, 02:05:33 PM
Don't forget about the Green party. There are dozens of us!
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on July 02, 2016, 02:54:16 PM
I voted Green last time.  Because they're actually Liberals, unlike the Democrats.  This time I'm going full Libertarian.  Because if the parties are going to do nothing but political bull-shenanigans, the voters might as well too.  So might as well sabotage the Republicans by getting the Libertarians some bennies.

Besides, thanks to the Electoral College, its not like my vote for President actually matters otherwise.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on July 02, 2016, 03:05:54 PM
I voted Green last time.  Because they're actually Liberals, unlike the Democrats.  This time I'm going full Libertarian.
Do not give in to the counter-revolutionaries, comrade! We must show solidarity!
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on July 05, 2016, 11:30:56 AM
Welp, justice is dead. (https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system)  Was a good run, proceed with the shitshow.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Nanshork on July 05, 2016, 11:43:50 AM
Welp, justice is dead. (https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system)  Was a good run, proceed with the shitshow.

Let's see with the DoJ does before deciding that it's all a shitshow.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 05, 2016, 06:07:53 PM
I wonder if Hillary would go for debating Johnson (the Libertarian) and
without The Donald around.  Specifically go to battleground states.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on July 05, 2016, 07:43:43 PM
Welp, justice is dead. (https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system)  Was a good run, proceed with the shitshow.

Let's see with the DoJ does before deciding that it's all a shitshow.
That being said, I am buying ponchos.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: FireInTheSky on July 05, 2016, 09:04:58 PM
I don't think I posted this before (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on July 05, 2016, 10:23:32 PM
Quote
Hillary is nobody’s idea of perfect. Fine. But in my view if a man with her qualifications were running in the Democratic primary, Bernie would have been done before he even started. And if a man with her qualifications had been running for the Republicans, they’d be anointing him the next Reagan while trying to sneak his face onto Mount Rushmore.
I didn't realize that I was going to vote for Jill Stein because I'm too sexist to support America's first female president!
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on July 06, 2016, 12:40:06 AM
I like how most defenses of Clinton include "Trump did it too!" like that's a good thing.  It used to be "*insert Right Wing politician here* did it too!", but lately it's been more Trump.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on July 06, 2016, 01:12:32 AM
Well, Trump's done everything at this point, which is why he wants to be President.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on July 06, 2016, 01:48:25 AM
His supporters are now calling for the mob to hang Hillary from a tree...
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on July 06, 2016, 10:16:57 AM
The police will get on that right after they finish arresting all those black protesters for lynching.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on July 06, 2016, 02:16:25 PM
I....I....I was right....I was right!  Pence is gearing up to be the VP pick!  I....holy carp.  That is good AND bad news at the same time.  Pence as the VP pick lends more credence to 'Trump doesn't want it', but also means he can't run for governor again!  Which means...it...means....John Gregg is the next governor of Indiana?  Holy carp?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on July 07, 2016, 03:22:45 AM
I'm scared.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 12, 2016, 05:51:32 PM
Bernie endorsed ... and looked quite idk between  :-\ and  >:( standing behind H.


Pence is still on the list.  I doubt Newt's gonna be it, heck his job was so much easier than Boehner's with no tea no nos.
The 3rd is a miitary guy who has been Publicly on camera pro-choice ... which is a conniption-able offense, I do say.
 

Poll of under 30s, had it about 40 20 20 20 for Hill Trump Libertarian and Green (lost the link for this).

CNN latest has it 42 38 9 7 nationally.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on July 12, 2016, 07:54:35 PM
Bernie endorsed ... and looked quite idk between  :-\ and  >:( standing behind H.


Pence is still on the list.  I doubt Newt's gonna be it, heck his job was so much easier than Boehner's with no tea no nos.
The 3rd is a miitary guy who has been Publicly on camera pro-choice ... which is a conniption-able offense, I do say.
 

Poll of under 30s, had it about 40 20 20 20 for Hill Trump Libertarian and Green (lost the link for this).

CNN latest has it 42 38 9 7 nationally.

....well, I suppose it's time to go Jill Stien and bunker down for 4 years.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on July 12, 2016, 08:50:47 PM
Continue working towards a better future.  Elect the local Berniecrats in your area, and change the system from the bottom up.  I wasn't expecting him to do even this well, deserving the nomination after all the BS he and his supporters were put through.  All Clinton had to do was not screw it up, and she did, hard.  Being a Clinton had a lot to do with it of course.  Clinton is in the awkward position of barely beating (and having to rely on shenanigans to beat) someone who didn't want to be president to the nomination of the party her opponent wasn't even a part of.  That's how bad of a candidate she is.

Bernie didn't want the nomination or the presidency.  He wanted to revitalize the leftward movement of the 30s and 60s, bring progressive politics back into vogue.  He has absolutely accomplished his goals.  There are more young people engaged than....dare I say ever before?  If not ever before in percentage, at least in volume.  He got a coalition of young people involved in politics and he has encouraged and provided the spark for the next generations to take back politics from the corporate politics it is now.  He understood that this was a long march towards progress, not a revolution.  A lot of his followers didn't, but now they are part of the new revolution in 4 years.  The worst is yet to come, but this is not a pessimistic or painful thing.  4-8 years from now, after Hillary loses her reelection bid to whoever the (R)s put up, will be bad.  But then things will get better.  After that election, maybe even before, a lot of the Berniecrats will be moving up the ranks in the world of politics.  He has planted the seeds of change, and in 8-16 years time we will reap the rewards.  Eventually, he will be vindicated, and celebrated, when one of his charges, those who heeded his call to arms, takes the oath and swears in to the presidency.  It will come, in our lifetime.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on July 12, 2016, 09:01:14 PM
Buy an entry level pump shotgun, a wide variety of ammo, and prepare for the Trump Riots.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Vladeshi on July 13, 2016, 02:21:04 AM
Buy an entry level pump shotgun, a wide variety of ammo, and prepare for the Trump Riots.

I would not recommend a "wide variety of ammo", really if you are going to be thinking about the possibility of shooting a person with a shotgun you want "Double aught" Buckshot or maybe slugs.
Honestly though I would recommend an intermediate caliber carbine well before a shotgun, it will cost a little more but is far more effective for home defense.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 13, 2016, 07:26:26 AM
Bernie endorsed ... and looked quite idk between  :-\ and  >:( standing behind H.


Pence is still on the list.  I doubt Newt's gonna be it, heck his job was so much easier than Boehner's with no tea no nos.
The 3rd is a miitary guy who has been Publicly on camera pro-choice ... which is a conniption-able offense, I do say.
 

Poll of under 30s, had it about 40 20 20 20 for Hill Trump Libertarian and Green (lost the link for this).

CNN latest has it 42 38 9 7 nationally.

....well, I suppose it's time to go Jill Stien and bunker down for 4 years.

You, and everyone expressing this sentiment, are driving me insane. Mostly the people posting one preachy message at a time.

Going by what I've seen, you'd think Hillary was proposing everyone eat babies once a week and Trump was a saint now.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on July 13, 2016, 12:31:24 PM
And I'm disappointed by people who are like you're describing Raineh. I always say vote your conscience, the person best for the job. I will most likely vote Stein in the general, because I don't vote for conservatives, and Trump is insane.  Hillary can be awful, but trump far worse, this is a thing that is possible, and in my mind it is true.  Hillary will win the general, hopefully we can send a message with enough people voting 3rd party that it breaks the two party system, if only for a while, and things will be like they were in the late 90s/early 2000s.  Trump sends us back to the 50s, Clinton only sends us back 20 years. It won't be THAT bad, but things will be worse than they are now with respect to certain policy types.  Then things will get better.  The presidency doesn't have as immediate of an effect as people think.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 13, 2016, 12:49:39 PM
I think it's the confluence of Trump supporters who've not changed position, people who've got nobody to support and just decided to attack the person who's (not really, blame voters) responsible for that, and seeing it when I'm trying to entertain myself. Also the constant attempts to encapsulate how much of a mess any high-ranking law issues are in a single meme or soundbite. If you aren't a legal scholar, please stop bleating that it must be illegal when you only have room for two sentences.

Though the people who've gone from Bernie to Trump baffle me. Did they pay any attention?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 13, 2016, 03:42:32 PM
latest under 30 Pew poll goes 47 - 21 - 22 , Hill Trump Libertarian , no green.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/09/could-donald-trump-lose-the-millennial-vote-to-gary-johnson/
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on July 13, 2016, 05:02:42 PM
I think it's the confluence of Trump supporters who've not changed position, people who've got nobody to support and just decided to attack the person who's (not really, blame voters) responsible for that, and seeing it when I'm trying to entertain myself. Also the constant attempts to encapsulate how much of a mess any high-ranking law issues are in a single meme or soundbite. If you aren't a legal scholar, please stop bleating that it must be illegal when you only have room for two sentences.

Though the people who've gone from Bernie to Trump baffle me. Did they pay any attention?

revenge
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on July 13, 2016, 07:06:46 PM
You, and everyone expressing this sentiment, are driving me insane. Mostly the people posting one preachy message at a time.

Going by what I've seen, you'd think Hillary was proposing everyone eat babies once a week and Trump was a saint now.
Serious question: what is Hillary's stance on our drone strike programs, and the civilian casulities they incur? Or are we still defining all dead individuals between 16 and 60 as terrorists?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 13, 2016, 07:24:10 PM
You, and everyone expressing this sentiment, are driving me insane. Mostly the people posting one preachy message at a time.

Going by what I've seen, you'd think Hillary was proposing everyone eat babies once a week and Trump was a saint now.
Serious question: what is Hillary's stance on our drone strike programs, and the civilian casulities they incur? Or are we still defining all dead individuals between 16 and 60 as terrorists?

I'm not going to trust the person who's running on a campaign of building walls and not working with other companies to retain peaceful actions when given any level of control over the world's largest military.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on July 13, 2016, 07:46:02 PM
You, and everyone expressing this sentiment, are driving me insane. Mostly the people posting one preachy message at a time.

Going by what I've seen, you'd think Hillary was proposing everyone eat babies once a week and Trump was a saint now.
Serious question: what is Hillary's stance on our drone strike programs, and the civilian casulities they incur? Or are we still defining all dead individuals between 16 and 60 as terrorists?

I have no problem with the use of drones.  In fact, I'd prefer them be used.  They are more accurate than a fighter-bomber, and less expensive, and safer.  I do have a problem with how they've been used.  But I think it's missing a bit of the point saying Obama's used more drones than all other presidents combined, because he's had them, and better ones, his whole presidency, and Bush didn't see them until later on.  There's some other considerations at play, as this is a very complex issue, and I think the biggest drawback is that because they're so cheap and easy, they're more likely to be used.  However they are safer with regards to civilian casualties than the alternatives.  In my view they are a tool that can be very useful if used correctly.

As for Clinton's view, it's probably similar to that, with the addendum that for her the 'more likely to be used' thing is not a drawback, so she would be more likely to use them prolifically than I would.  And by that I mean she'd actually use them, because she'd be very active in militaristic strategies.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on July 13, 2016, 09:00:59 PM
You, and everyone expressing this sentiment, are driving me insane. Mostly the people posting one preachy message at a time.

Going by what I've seen, you'd think Hillary was proposing everyone eat babies once a week and Trump was a saint now.
Serious question: what is Hillary's stance on our drone strike programs, and the civilian casulities they incur? Or are we still defining all dead individuals between 16 and 60 as terrorists?

I'm not going to trust the person who's running on a campaign of building walls and not working with other companies to retain peaceful actions when given any level of control over the world's largest military.

And would you care to answer the question at any point?

I have no problem with the use of drones.  In fact, I'd prefer them be used.  They are more accurate than a fighter-bomber, and less expensive, and safer.  I do have a problem with how they've been used.  But I think it's missing a bit of the point saying Obama's used more drones than all other presidents combined, because he's had them, and better ones, his whole presidency, and Bush didn't see them until later on.  There's some other considerations at play, as this is a very complex issue, and I think the biggest drawback is that because they're so cheap and easy, they're more likely to be used.  However they are safer with regards to civilian casualties than the alternatives.  In my view they are a tool that can be very useful if used correctly.

As for Clinton's view, it's probably similar to that, with the addendum that for her the 'more likely to be used' thing is not a drawback, so she would be more likely to use them prolifically than I would.  And by that I mean she'd actually use them, because she'd be very active in militaristic strategies.

Leaving aside the issue of whether war itself is moral or not, and of whether the wars we are currently engaged in are moral - or even legal - I do have to say that drones are a fantastic military resource that are liable to horrendous misuse. I believe we all saw the relevant John Oliver clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4NRJoCNHIs).
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 13, 2016, 09:13:16 PM
You, and everyone expressing this sentiment, are driving me insane. Mostly the people posting one preachy message at a time.

Going by what I've seen, you'd think Hillary was proposing everyone eat babies once a week and Trump was a saint now.
Serious question: what is Hillary's stance on our drone strike programs, and the civilian casulities they incur? Or are we still defining all dead individuals between 16 and 60 as terrorists?

I'm not going to trust the person who's running on a campaign of building walls and not working with other companies to retain peaceful actions when given any level of control over the world's largest military.

And would you care to answer the question at any point?

Do I care to answer rhetorical questions directly? No. That would be stupid. We both know what the answer is, so there's no point in my giving it instead of why I don't think it's enough differentiation.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on July 13, 2016, 09:14:41 PM
Just to be clear: We both know the answer is that Hillary Clinton, while not the type to eat babies, will occasionally send a Hellfire missile their way?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 13, 2016, 09:17:08 PM
And that Trump's no saint that has called for the death penalty to be reinstated to kill people who turned out to be innocent, yes.

Though my complaint was how often people were obsessing over the email investigation in memes. I'm pretty sure that the other side isn't any better on murky law.

Foreign policy is hopeless on all fronts.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on July 14, 2016, 03:16:54 AM
Buy an entry level pump shotgun, a wide variety of ammo, and prepare for the Trump Riots.

I would not recommend a "wide variety of ammo", really if you are going to be thinking about the possibility of shooting a person with a shotgun you want "Double aught" Buckshot or maybe slugs.
Honestly though I would recommend an intermediate caliber carbine well before a shotgun, it will cost a little more but is far more effective for home defense.
Of course you need a wide variety!  Silver for werewolves, iron for faeries, wood for vampires, depleted uranium, blessed, you name it.  Best to have a magazine with one of each so you can test what kind of ammo you need and switch to the right magazine for total annihilation.   :D
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Vladeshi on July 15, 2016, 01:53:33 AM
Buy an entry level pump shotgun, a wide variety of ammo, and prepare for the Trump Riots.

I would not recommend a "wide variety of ammo", really if you are going to be thinking about the possibility of shooting a person with a shotgun you want "Double aught" Buckshot or maybe slugs.
Honestly though I would recommend an intermediate caliber carbine well before a shotgun, it will cost a little more but is far more effective for home defense.
Of course you need a wide variety!  Silver for werewolves, iron for faeries, wood for vampires, depleted uranium, blessed, you name it.  Best to have a magazine with one of each so you can test what kind of ammo you need and switch to the right magazine for total annihilation.   :D

And now I have to figure out how to do this reliably in a firearm. :shakefist
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on July 15, 2016, 02:32:47 AM
Actually, wood bullets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooden_bullet) exist - they're a type of less than lethal munition.

But it has to be the wood of a rowan tree. Or something.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 15, 2016, 01:55:58 PM
 :P :D ... kudos to DMan on his Trump Mind Meld.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 15, 2016, 01:57:52 PM
Just to be clear: We both know the answer is that Hillary Clinton, while not the type to eat babies, will occasionally send a Hellfire missile their way?

Hillary Clinton is  the type to eat babies, next up on Fox News.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on July 15, 2016, 02:03:54 PM
Don't be rediculous, voters disapprove of baby eating.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 15, 2016, 02:17:02 PM
Cake baked in a baby shape?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 15, 2016, 02:47:51 PM
Jelly babies?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on July 16, 2016, 12:48:57 AM
She'd confuse them with Jelly Beans.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on July 16, 2016, 04:06:27 AM
:P :D ... kudos to DMan on his Trump Mind Meld.

And for my next trick, Trump will say something calculatedly stupid, like I don't know, "Mike Pence likes gay people".  No, not stupid enough, too blunt.  But not fabricated on the spot sounding....how about, "Erdogan must go".  He's going to take that stance tomorrow, but ALSO say that Turkey needs to be stable.  It combines both stances on what all sides in America feel about the situation, depending on what they know about it, but leaves room for him to claim he was right all along whichever way things turn out.  He'll express regret that the coup failed, but also state that he's glad Turkey will still kill terrorists, and that Erdogan needs to step down, or he'll die.  Then later, when confronted about this, he'll state that the press is out to get him, and note that he wanted Turkey to be stable, given their efforts in fighting ISIS which "is way more effective than Obama ever has been", so of course he should stay in power.  Then he'll find out he's essentially a dictator, and praise him, fully backing him for his alleged war crimes and human rights violations.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 16, 2016, 01:32:34 PM
I want to laugh, I really do.
But I can't because it's happened before and it'll happen again ...  :-\
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Libertad on July 16, 2016, 11:35:54 PM
Don't be rediculous, voters disapprove of baby eating.

I couldn't help but think of this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhJ7NmU6lJI)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 18, 2016, 04:13:40 PM
Turkey is getting weird in a hurry.
EU's lead guy for Turkey joining, has said they had a pre-existing list of arrestees.
And it's a massive list.

Rueters is reporting f-16s locked onto Erdogan's plane, but didn't fire.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-security-plot-insight-idUSKCN0ZX0Q9
... and regardless there's the radar info from Greece.

Wikileaks says they've got a pile of stuff they're gonna release too.
France's socialist Foreign Minister questioned whether Turkey will be anti-ISIS (i.e. al-Qaeda) at all.
Wow.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on July 18, 2016, 07:30:21 PM
Turkey's been in trouble for a while, but because they've been somewhat anti-ISIS we as a country and Europe as a group has been largely forgiving their transgressions.  So now it's come to a head, and I had to listen to some pundits the other day express surprise at something that I was expecting, and anyone should expect, to happen, happening.  I wasn't expecting a coup, specifically, I was expecting Turkey to just....kind of explode a bit.  Be it protests and riots against Erdogan, or a coup (we've known the military there isn't really....under control of its leaders as much as most military commanders would like, and this is confirmation), or terrorist attacks becoming more frequent (hey....wait a second....), whatever.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 19, 2016, 04:43:36 PM
Russian Today says they got hit by a DDOS right at the start of the coup.
A) that's very strange why them?
B) any body else have proof?

Turkey's Facebook got throttled down in the middle of the whole thing,
and then got spooled back up within 1 hour while  it was still on.

Twitter seems to have been the most up to date news site.
Twitter.
Dang I'm gonna have to git wit' it.

Still, being some amount backhandedly pro-ISIS (alQaeda, IS ISIL, Nusra, whatevs)
is really bad form, for any interaction with the USA and now France too.


edit --- Academics now have a travel ban.  Brutal.


**


Melania's speechwriter plagerized Michelle Obama from '08.
Oops.
 :p


edit --- day 2 lots of empty seats.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 21, 2016, 06:46:46 PM
Library Of Congress is reporting on it's twitter page, that it got hit by a DDoS attack.  Turkish hacker group has already claimed responsibility.

Talk of moving Nukes from Incirlik airbase, is now mainstream.


Colbert ... was hilarious as usual ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh1wctQNKRM
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on July 21, 2016, 08:32:58 PM
Just to be clear: We both know the answer is that Hillary Clinton, while not the type to eat babies, will occasionally send a Hellfire missile their way?

Hillary Clinton is  the type to eat babies, next up on Fox News.
That reminds me, we killed over 80 pre-terrorists in Syria.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on July 22, 2016, 07:34:08 PM
So...Wikileaks released a bunch of emails to/from the DNC and (D)s.  In it, the DNC and its employees discuss preventing Sanders from doing anything, call his supporters 'Bernie Bros' and 'the insurgency'.  Tried to use his religion to discredit him to voters.  There's hidden donations, and an email from them to donor about how the donor shouldn't email them at all.  There's a wealth of issue that need to be addressed in it, and....wow.  They even sent an email to Chuck Todd to tell him to "stop this".  What?

EDIT: Also, apparently needing to appeal more to conservatives, Hillary has chosen Tim Kaine as her running mate.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 23, 2016, 02:29:30 PM
Strange/funny/sad that Trump pretending to be religious, is more valuable than Bernie not pretending to be religious.

Just to be clear: We both know the answer is that Hillary Clinton, while not the type to eat babies, will occasionally send a Hellfire missile their way?

Hillary Clinton is  the type to eat babies, next up on Fox News.

That reminds me, we killed over 80 pre-terrorists in Syria.

True and sad.
The idea that the USA can somehow play pin-point bombing ala a video game, is a stupid idea and yet that fiction seems so necessary for the American public.
War is war ; civilians die too.

Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: phaedrusxy on July 23, 2016, 05:33:56 PM
So...Wikileaks released a bunch of emails to/from the DNC and (D)s.  In it, the DNC and its employees discuss preventing Sanders from doing anything, call his supporters 'Bernie Bros' and 'the insurgency'.  Tried to use his religion to discredit him to voters.  There's hidden donations, and an email from them to donor about how the donor shouldn't email them at all.  There's a wealth of issue that need to be addressed in it, and....wow.  They even sent an email to Chuck Todd to tell him to "stop this".  What?

EDIT: Also, apparently needing to appeal more to conservatives, Hillary has chosen Tim Kaine as her running mate.
Holy crap this is awesome.  :lol I so hope this blows up in their fucking faces at the convention. I have to be in Philly just a few days after it is over. I'm tempted to drive up there a bit early just to go watch the shitstorm. (Although... I still want Trump to lose... more than I care about the DNC's corruption... sadly... So I'll probably still vote for Hillary...  :banghead)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on July 24, 2016, 12:19:15 PM
We've hit Peak McCarthyism.  The (R)s are doing it in the neo-McCarthy method of accusing people are secret Muslims and such.  The Dems are now doing it the old school way, blaming the WikiLeaks hack on the Russians to try to help Trump.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on July 24, 2016, 12:34:59 PM
So...Wikileaks released a bunch of emails to/from the DNC and (D)s.  In it, the DNC and its employees discuss preventing Sanders from doing anything, call his supporters 'Bernie Bros' and 'the insurgency'.  Tried to use his religion to discredit him to voters.  There's hidden donations, and an email from them to donor about how the donor shouldn't email them at all.  There's a wealth of issue that need to be addressed in it, and....wow.  They even sent an email to Chuck Todd to tell him to "stop this".  What?

EDIT: Also, apparently needing to appeal more to conservatives, Hillary has chosen Tim Kaine as her running mate.
Holy crap this is awesome.  :lol I so hope this blows up in their fucking faces at the convention. I have to be in Philly just a few days after it is over. I'm tempted to drive up there a bit early just to go watch the shitstorm. (Although... I still want Trump to lose... more than I care about the DNC's corruption... sadly... So I'll probably still vote for Hillary...  :banghead)
Join the Green Party. There are dozens of us. DOZENS!
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Agrippa on July 26, 2016, 12:43:09 AM
So...Wikileaks released a bunch of emails to/from the DNC and (D)s.  In it, the DNC and its employees discuss preventing Sanders from doing anything, call his supporters 'Bernie Bros' and 'the insurgency'.  Tried to use his religion to discredit him to voters.  There's hidden donations, and an email from them to donor about how the donor shouldn't email them at all.  There's a wealth of issue that need to be addressed in it, and....wow.  They even sent an email to Chuck Todd to tell him to "stop this".  What?

EDIT: Also, apparently needing to appeal more to conservatives, Hillary has chosen Tim Kaine as her running mate.
Holy crap this is awesome.  :lol I so hope this blows up in their fucking faces at the convention. I have to be in Philly just a few days after it is over. I'm tempted to drive up there a bit early just to go watch the shitstorm. (Although... I still want Trump to lose... more than I care about the DNC's corruption... sadly... So I'll probably still vote for Hillary...  :banghead)

To bad the race is mostly between Trump and Clinton. If any of the third party candidates had a real shot at winning I'd vote for one of them instead. I really hate this election cycle.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on July 26, 2016, 01:16:50 AM
Vote anyways. If someone hasn't earned your vote, then fuck 'em.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 26, 2016, 08:08:55 AM
Vote anyways. If someone hasn't earned your vote, then fuck 'em.

That's one way for them to earn your vote...
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Unbeliever on July 26, 2016, 10:58:03 AM
We've hit Peak McCarthyism.  The (R)s are doing it in the neo-McCarthy method of accusing people are secret Muslims and such.  The Dems are now doing it the old school way, blaming the WikiLeaks hack on the Russians to try to help Trump.
The crucial difference, as always, is that there is some actual evidence that Russians were involved in the latter. 


To bad the race is mostly between Trump and Clinton. If any of the third party candidates had a real shot at winning I'd vote for one of them instead. I really hate this election cycle.
I'm old enough to remember the 2000 Election Cycle, which informs my feelings on this quarter.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on July 26, 2016, 01:37:10 PM
While there is evidence of Russians hacking the DNC, what there is no evidence of is them helping Trump.  Basically the whole thing was essentially "uh....LOOK THE RUSSIANS EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION TO THAT".  It reeked of using a foreign "other" to sway politics, the 'otherism' that defined McCarthyism.

I'm also old enough to remember the 2000 election.  I'd venture a guess to say my feelings on it are different?  I don't blame Nader for Gore's loss, at all.  I think it's wrong to blame him for it.  If he didn't run, it's likely Gore would have won, but there were a lot of other problems.  Gore wasn't a strong candidate for one, and you can blame the SCOTUS a bit as well.  In other words, much like all politics, it wasn't a simple 'who's at fault'.  Bush was a very strong candidate that year.  2004 was much different, but defeating an incumbent is very hard to do.

A note on defeating incumbents.  There is a major difference between an incumbent and and someone trying to be the current position's ideological continuation.  In 1988, Bush was the incumbent-lite.  He won.  Barely.  And then lost, because he wasn't a real incumbent.  In 2000, the incumbent-lite was Gore, the previous VP.  This time, Hillary is in that role.  Generally, after an incumbent's term is up, the voting block swings to the other end of the ideological spectrum, electing a conservative person after a liberal person, and a liberal after a conservative.  This is all relatives, of course.  Bush can be seen as more liberal than Reagan, but Clinton was more liberal than him.  So that change DID happen in that election, it just didn't switch parties.  And it fed into Clinton's election.  Gore, however, was NOT to the right of Clinton.  He was to the left.  That really hurt his chances of winning.  Clinton is to the right of Obama.  She will win, and that she is conservative is not a small part of why she'll be elected.  However.  She will be replaced in her re-election bid by someone more conservative, most likely.  There's a chance someone more liberal replaces her, but my money's on a republican at least.  If there's a more liberal republican, that person will likely beat her in re-election.

TL:DR the grass is always greener, except when you can't see it.  Incumbents are grass you can see, challengers are grass you can't, incumbent-lites are the grass you already have but can't see.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Unbeliever on July 26, 2016, 03:42:31 PM
While there is evidence of Russians hacking the DNC, what there is no evidence of is them helping Trump.  Basically the whole thing was essentially "uh....LOOK THE RUSSIANS EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION TO THAT".  It reeked of using a foreign "other" to sway politics, the 'otherism' that defined McCarthyism.
I'm going to brush past your repeated invocations of McCarthyism as internet hyperbole.  It does a disservice to the actual harms that McCarthy caused.  Although I'm not disputing what you're saying about the tactic of the Dems, I didn't really pay that much attention to it.  The false equivalency thing, which has plagued us for decades now, does bug me, though. 

I'm also old enough to remember the 2000 election.  I'd venture a guess to say my feelings on it are different?  I don't blame Nader for Gore's loss, at all.  I think it's wrong to blame him for it.  If he didn't run, it's likely Gore would have won, but there were a lot of other problems.  Gore wasn't a strong candidate for one, and you can blame the SCOTUS a bit as well.  In other words, much like all politics, it wasn't a simple 'who's at fault'.  Bush was a very strong candidate that year.  2004 was much different, but defeating an incumbent is very hard to do.
Listen, you and I can't actually talk politics.  I mentioned a personal feeling about a major past event, one that informed my current feelings, and you jumped to this blame game nonsense.  I've read enough of this thread to understand the passionate, but frankly combative and high-minded perspective you take on these issues.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 26, 2016, 05:38:40 PM

Vote anyways. If someone hasn't earned your vote, then fcvk 'em.

That's one way for them to earn your vote...


Vote for PhaedrusXY , his sig is awesome  :flutter

(http://gaia.adage.com/images/bin/image/rightrail/0917p5-The-Most-Interesting-Man-in-the-World.jpg?1347661058)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on July 26, 2016, 07:27:08 PM
Well, it's officially over now.

Unfortunately I am of the opinion that this effectively locks us into President Trump.  I will be voting Stien as I have always held as my plan B.  I wonder what happens now.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 26, 2016, 07:34:17 PM
Well, it's officially over now.

Unfortunately I am of the opinion that this effectively locks us into President Trump.  I will be voting Stien as I have always held as my plan B.  I wonder what happens now.

The rest of the world gets pissed at the USA?

Except for those parts laughing.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on July 26, 2016, 08:01:39 PM
Well, it's officially over now.

Unfortunately I am of the opinion that this effectively locks us into President Trump.  I will be voting Stien as I have always held as my plan B.  I wonder what happens now.

The rest of the world gets pissed at the USA?

Except for those parts laughing.

Yup.

(Unrelated side note, check your PMs.  I've been looking for you.)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: ketaro on July 26, 2016, 08:09:47 PM
But what's this stuff I've heard about Bernie being nominated to run for president at the DNC convention today? Or yesterday, W/e.
???
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on July 26, 2016, 08:18:31 PM
But what's this stuff I've heard about Bernie being nominated to run for president at the DNC convention today? Or yesterday, W/e.
???

It just meant they were including him on the list to vote on, rather than what they were going to do and ignore that he ever existed.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 26, 2016, 08:20:28 PM
Well, it's officially over now.

Unfortunately I am of the opinion that this effectively locks us into President Trump.  I will be voting Stien as I have always held as my plan B.  I wonder what happens now.

The rest of the world gets pissed at the USA?

Except for those parts laughing.

Yup.

(Unrelated side note, check your PMs.  I've been looking for you.)

Or people could not cut off their nose to spite their face. That would be nice.

I wish I could read minds to find out why voters are deciding now is the time to choose idealogical principles over pragmatism... :rolleyes
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on July 26, 2016, 09:38:42 PM
Or people could not cut off their nose to spite their face. That would be nice.

I wish I could read minds to find out why voters are deciding now is the time to choose idealogical principles over pragmatism... :rolleyes
Some of us were always going to vote Green.

Not me, of course. I've always been trying to summon Cthulhu.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 26, 2016, 09:51:42 PM
Or people could not cut off their nose to spite their face. That would be nice.

I wish I could read minds to find out why voters are deciding now is the time to choose idealogical principles over pragmatism... :rolleyes
Some of us were always going to vote Green.

Not me, of course. I've always been trying to summon Cthulhu.

It seems disingenuous to me to put lots of time and effort into affecting the outcome of a party selection process... then to promptly turn your back and sabotage it when lots of people disagree with you.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on July 26, 2016, 10:21:23 PM
It seems disingenuous to me to put lots of time and effort into affecting the outcome of a party selection process... then to promptly turn your back and sabotage it when lots of people disagree with you.
Thoughts on #NeverTrump?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on July 26, 2016, 11:08:12 PM
Or people could not cut off their nose to spite their face. That would be nice.

I wish I could read minds to find out why voters are deciding now is the time to choose idealogical principles over pragmatism... :rolleyes
Some of us were always going to vote Green.

Not me, of course. I've always been trying to summon Cthulhu.

I gotta say I love his "Eat all humans" platform, that will really solve climate change.  Do you know if Yog Sothoth is going to run as VP?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on July 27, 2016, 12:38:29 AM
Look, I we all know he's going to choose the Colour out of Space to get the chromatic vote.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on July 27, 2016, 02:11:45 AM
theres always the nihilist party

(https://41.media.tumblr.com/0d5b7e8dcca1830bd6d2c4b938b54b22/tumblr_inline_o3qsa1TaJa1qa6wh9_540.png)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 27, 2016, 08:22:20 AM
It seems disingenuous to me to put lots of time and effort into affecting the outcome of a party selection process... then to promptly turn your back and sabotage it when lots of people disagree with you.
Thoughts on #NeverTrump?

Did I stutter? :P
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: phaedrusxy on July 27, 2016, 10:30:15 AM
theres always the nihilist party

"We're nihilists Lebowski! We believe in nothing!" (Great image by the way. You made me look that guy up. :P )
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on July 27, 2016, 03:42:58 PM
theres always the nihilist party

"We're nihilists Lebowski! We believe in nothing!" (Great image by the way. You made me look that guy up. :P )

Necro Butcher has an interesting history.  As well as one of the most terrifying matches I have ever seen.

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/other-wrestling/1520433-iwa-ms-ds-ec-discussion-thread-2.html  <serious squick warning
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 27, 2016, 04:22:36 PM
But what's this stuff I've heard about Bernie being nominated to run for president at the DNC convention today? Or yesterday, W/e.
???

It just meant they were including him on the list to vote on, rather than what they were going to do and ignore that he ever existed.

They gave Bernie's brother the international vote slot and he was quite moved by the moment, Bernie too had to fight back tears.

Bernie got the official nominating slot for Hillary.
http://time.com/4425363/dnc-bernie-sanders-nominate-hillary-clinton/
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 27, 2016, 04:32:32 PM
Meanwhile, Trump has called for Russia to hack Clinton.

I think the FBI basically went "What."
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on July 28, 2016, 03:22:36 PM
Well, it's officially over now.

Unfortunately I am of the opinion that this effectively locks us into President Trump.  I will be voting Stien as I have always held as my plan B.  I wonder what happens now.

The rest of the world gets pissed at the USA?

Except for those parts laughing.

Yup.

(Unrelated side note, check your PMs.  I've been looking for you.)

Or people could not cut off their nose to spite their face. That would be nice.

I wish I could read minds to find out why voters are deciding now is the time to choose idealogical principles over pragmatism... :rolleyes
Because right now is the most pragmatic time to choose idealogical principles?  Both stinking parties are mid meltdown.  Libertarian Gary Johnson is climbing in the polls, and actually stands a strong chance of making it to the Presidential Debates.  A conservative that isn't a clown is appealing to many typical Republican voters.  Green candidate Jill Stein is polling lower, and has a lower national presence, but like Johnson is actually on enough ballots to have the opportunity to win.  She isn't on every ballot, last I heard, unlike the other three, so her odds are even thinner.  Then again, the DNC corruption is bound to send folks her way.  And should Stein and Johnson play spoiler and create a contested election, Johnson probably has a better chance of winning in Congress than anyone else, but especially poison pill Trumpy.

Either way, both parties are undergoing shit storms at the moment.  There hasn't been this good of a time to try and push a third party candidate that I can think of since Teddy Roosevelt felt like making Taft his bitch again.  Sure, last time one succeeded we fought a war over it, but that doesn't mean we have to keep up this Lesser of Two Evils farce.

Besides, its not like most of our votes actually directly matter.  The Electoral College system ensures most of us cast our vote when the national census comes through.  :P  So the best use may be giving another option the spotlight for a little while.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 28, 2016, 05:32:07 PM
Kaine clocks in with a collective meh ... except the legit Spanish created some near rapturiousness.

Bill's speech in the first half, got a solid punt from Men of all stripes, but some Women went into full swoon mode.

Cruz did it along the same lines too, about 70% of Repubs liked everything he said right up to that last zinger.


It's like ultra-specific targetting.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on July 30, 2016, 04:10:03 AM
Well, it's officially over now.

Unfortunately I am of the opinion that this effectively locks us into President Trump.  I will be voting Stien as I have always held as my plan B.  I wonder what happens now.

The rest of the world gets pissed at the USA?

Except for those parts laughing.

Yup.

(Unrelated side note, check your PMs.  I've been looking for you.)

Or people could not cut off their nose to spite their face. That would be nice.

I wish I could read minds to find out why voters are deciding now is the time to choose idealogical principles over pragmatism... :rolleyes
Because right now is the most pragmatic time to choose idealogical principles?  Both stinking parties are mid meltdown.  Libertarian Gary Johnson is climbing in the polls, and actually stands a strong chance of making it to the Presidential Debates.  A conservative that isn't a clown is appealing to many typical Republican voters.  Green candidate Jill Stein is polling lower, and has a lower national presence, but like Johnson is actually on enough ballots to have the opportunity to win.  She isn't on every ballot, last I heard, unlike the other three, so her odds are even thinner.  Then again, the DNC corruption is bound to send folks her way.  And should Stein and Johnson play spoiler and create a contested election, Johnson probably has a better chance of winning in Congress than anyone else, but especially poison pill Trumpy.

Either way, both parties are undergoing shit storms at the moment.  There hasn't been this good of a time to try and push a third party candidate that I can think of since Teddy Roosevelt felt like making Taft his bitch again.  Sure, last time one succeeded we fought a war over it, but that doesn't mean we have to keep up this Lesser of Two Evils farce.

Besides, its not like most of our votes actually directly matter.  The Electoral College system ensures most of us cast our vote when the national census comes through.  :P  So the best use may be giving another option the spotlight for a little while.

I just wanted to say, underrated post.

Some have been saying "wait it out, vote for the lesser evil, try again next time", but the problem is that they've been saying that for 30 years.  And frankly I've never seen anything close to a meltdown like this year, not even the insurgent rise and fall of Ron Paul last time.  If there is ever a time, that time is now.

I just wonder about the people who say that: if now is not the time to push for an option C, when?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on July 30, 2016, 08:16:34 AM
Well, it's officially over now.

Unfortunately I am of the opinion that this effectively locks us into President Trump.  I will be voting Stien as I have always held as my plan B.  I wonder what happens now.

The rest of the world gets pissed at the USA?

Except for those parts laughing.

Yup.

(Unrelated side note, check your PMs.  I've been looking for you.)

Or people could not cut off their nose to spite their face. That would be nice.

I wish I could read minds to find out why voters are deciding now is the time to choose idealogical principles over pragmatism... :rolleyes
Because right now is the most pragmatic time to choose idealogical principles?  Both stinking parties are mid meltdown.  Libertarian Gary Johnson is climbing in the polls, and actually stands a strong chance of making it to the Presidential Debates.  A conservative that isn't a clown is appealing to many typical Republican voters.  Green candidate Jill Stein is polling lower, and has a lower national presence, but like Johnson is actually on enough ballots to have the opportunity to win.  She isn't on every ballot, last I heard, unlike the other three, so her odds are even thinner.  Then again, the DNC corruption is bound to send folks her way.  And should Stein and Johnson play spoiler and create a contested election, Johnson probably has a better chance of winning in Congress than anyone else, but especially poison pill Trumpy.

Either way, both parties are undergoing shit storms at the moment.  There hasn't been this good of a time to try and push a third party candidate that I can think of since Teddy Roosevelt felt like making Taft his bitch again.  Sure, last time one succeeded we fought a war over it, but that doesn't mean we have to keep up this Lesser of Two Evils farce.

Besides, its not like most of our votes actually directly matter.  The Electoral College system ensures most of us cast our vote when the national census comes through.  :P  So the best use may be giving another option the spotlight for a little while.

I just wanted to say, underrated post.

Some have been saying "wait it out, vote for the lesser evil, try again next time", but the problem is that they've been saying that for 30 years.  And frankly I've never seen anything close to a meltdown like this year, not even the insurgent rise and fall of Ron Paul last time.  If there is ever a time, that time is now.

I just wonder about the people who say that: if now is not the time to push for an option C, when?

Well, not handing the office that controls all environmental regulation to people that believe that shouldn't exist would be a nice thing.

But no, fixate on the presidency like that's a useful time to push for a third option.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on July 30, 2016, 10:16:49 AM
I see the points both ways on this.  I'm honestly pretty torn.  I have to admit, while I have said I'm probably voting Stein, I really don't think she's great.  She's not exactly pro-science*, So essentially, my voting for her has always been essentially a protest vote.  Hillary is...bad.  Not many people can argue, progressives and left leaning people anyways, that she's good.  She's going to be about as good as a Bush presidency.  This is pretty much not disputed from anyone I know following politics.  A lot of people forget, but Bush Jr was pretty okay for minorities, with his rhetoric.  After 9/11 he did issue a call to not blame Muslims for it, blame the terrorists.  He was fairly pro-immigrant.  He was somewhat corrupt, but not hugely so.  He was bad for foreign policy, bad for domestic policy, but not 100% destructively so.  Hillary will be about like that.  I can live through that pretty easily.  Trump is a wild card, I don't know exactly what will happen.  I know his positions, both the news version and the actual versions he has on his website, and they are....survivable if the system works.  The SCOTUS is an issue for long term stuff, but again, if the system works, with checks and balances, that might not be a huge deal.  Hillary has more long term implications.  If she wins, and she probably will, it's not that her policies will cause massive problems in the country, it's that long term she will affect no positive change, and keep us in this sort of pseudo oligarchical structure, with special interests being able to buy elections and money ruling everything still with the disaffected being the foot stools for years to come.  Her problem is that in the future, long term past 4 years, is that there will be a bigger backlash against people like her going forward.

This is all negated if in fact she actually means what she said later on in her campaign, after she tried to become Sanders.  However, picking Tim Kaine, listening to Wall Street to avoid picking Warren, her friends outright saying she's going to flip on TPP, etc. all indicate that she's not being honest with those positions.

*She suffers from a worse position as Sanders on science, Sanders is anti-nuclear power, which environmentalists should absolutely be all about.  She is more anti-nuclear than him, but also kind of an anti-vaxxer, but not really.  She's not so anti-vax as to really color her positions too much, so it's not a huge deal.  But it exists, so I know some third party voters who are reluctant because of that.  But also, there's the stuff she's been pulling lately, she's essentially become Hillary of the progressives, saying that she's the anti-Hillary choice, not that she's the progressive choice.  Over the past couple months she's been wearing thin on me because of it.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on July 30, 2016, 11:45:20 AM
Hones question do we really need a president? Can we not seize the means of production for ourselves?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on July 30, 2016, 03:52:56 PM

Honest question do we really need a president?

No.  A purely ceremonial President could allow to become law any bill that passes his ("his") desk, not otherwise doing anything.

And worse, if this most recent ultra-filibustered and ultra-gerrymandered Congress is actually a harbinger of future conduct, they won't pass very many bills at all.

The military could fight whatever War they wanted to, and congress would have to stop ditherings for the troups to get paid.  But that all volunteer force, believes in it's Holy wars, and doesn't need to get paid, to go along with their always being cut Veterans Care.  See the Revolutionary War vets, and the WW 1 vets.  They both had to march on congress to get paid and at a massive discount.  Bonus Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army.  "Not until March 18, 1818 (3 Stat. 410), did the U. S. Congress grant pensions to Revolutionary War veterans for service".

Dystopian to the extreme, but true and historical.

Quote

Can we not seize the means of production for ourselves?

Nope.
Wall Street and Big Tech, have a permanent advantage.  We'll get to see this play out in our lifetimes.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on August 04, 2016, 03:00:55 AM
Well, it's officially over now.

Unfortunately I am of the opinion that this effectively locks us into President Trump.  I will be voting Stien as I have always held as my plan B.  I wonder what happens now.

The rest of the world gets pissed at the USA?

Except for those parts laughing.

Yup.

(Unrelated side note, check your PMs.  I've been looking for you.)

Or people could not cut off their nose to spite their face. That would be nice.

I wish I could read minds to find out why voters are deciding now is the time to choose idealogical principles over pragmatism... :rolleyes
Because right now is the most pragmatic time to choose idealogical principles?  Both stinking parties are mid meltdown.  Libertarian Gary Johnson is climbing in the polls, and actually stands a strong chance of making it to the Presidential Debates.  A conservative that isn't a clown is appealing to many typical Republican voters.  Green candidate Jill Stein is polling lower, and has a lower national presence, but like Johnson is actually on enough ballots to have the opportunity to win.  She isn't on every ballot, last I heard, unlike the other three, so her odds are even thinner.  Then again, the DNC corruption is bound to send folks her way.  And should Stein and Johnson play spoiler and create a contested election, Johnson probably has a better chance of winning in Congress than anyone else, but especially poison pill Trumpy.

Either way, both parties are undergoing shit storms at the moment.  There hasn't been this good of a time to try and push a third party candidate that I can think of since Teddy Roosevelt felt like making Taft his bitch again.  Sure, last time one succeeded we fought a war over it, but that doesn't mean we have to keep up this Lesser of Two Evils farce.

Besides, its not like most of our votes actually directly matter.  The Electoral College system ensures most of us cast our vote when the national census comes through.  :P  So the best use may be giving another option the spotlight for a little while.

I just wanted to say, underrated post.

Some have been saying "wait it out, vote for the lesser evil, try again next time", but the problem is that they've been saying that for 30 years.  And frankly I've never seen anything close to a meltdown like this year, not even the insurgent rise and fall of Ron Paul last time.  If there is ever a time, that time is now.

I just wonder about the people who say that: if now is not the time to push for an option C, when?

Well, not handing the office that controls all environmental regulation to people that believe that shouldn't exist would be a nice thing.

But no, fixate on the presidency like that's a useful time to push for a third option.

You act like I won't be voting in Sanders-esque members into other positions in the government.  I'm still doing that, even though the presidency is now a lost cause.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Captnq on August 04, 2016, 04:07:00 PM
Think you are all missing the big picture.

Add up all debt, Fed/State/County/Local - it's about 25.3 Trillion.
Add up all taxes Fed/State/County/Local - it's about 4 Trillion.
Add up all expenses Fed/State/County/Local - it's about 5.6 Trillion.

Add in interest on all the debt and you find out that we're on track to tack on about 3 trillion dollars this year to the total national debt.

Neither candidate is talking about it. Why?

Because Hillary will have to admit its the democrats fault.
Because Trump will have to admit his only option is to slash all government welfare programs by a minimum of 30%.

Vote Hillary and her plans will put the total US Government Debt at 40 Trillion before the end of her first term. Her plan to fix our economy is to spend our way out of it. It didn't work for Obama, it won't work for Hillary.

Vote Trump and his plan is to say, "Fuck the poor. I just hope we can generate enough jobs they don't freeze to death before the winter comes."

Because what NOBODY is talking about is that as SOON as our debt is over 10 times our income, The US WILL be downgraded to AA status. Once that happens everyone will know it's gone too far. The US T-Bills will go into free fall. And before the end of Hillary's second term, we will envy Greece. We will look back on the 1930's and say to ourselves, "Good times... good times..."

Trump is going to "fix" it. Like you fix a Heroin Addict by strapping him to a bed and putting a ball gag in his mouth so he doesn't accidentally bite off his own tongue.

So, do you want to pay the bill now, or do you want the party to continue another 4 years before you have to deal with the bill, deal with the massive hangover, and confront the multiple messages on your cell phone,"Why aren't you at work? Where are you? Don't bother coming in, YOU'RE FIRED"?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on August 04, 2016, 04:55:35 PM
I think it's been strongly shown that you can't fix a deficit by cutting spending, because that just slows the economy down because there's less money moving around. Reduces tax income and increases reliance on government expenditure, and then you go for round two and funnily enough that doesn't fix the problem either. So short of immediately abolishing all public spending and opening a completely different can of worms, what's the point in talking about it?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on August 04, 2016, 05:16:12 PM
Latest batch of polls look pretty good for Hillary with a convention bounce and Trump's latest planned "outrage".


I look at ~about 85% of the tax $ spent in the 5 biggest programs.

Military = stop going to war(s) based on total nonsense and the ginning up industry.
Vet Care = already voted to be cut with every vote, Vets have good care, better than Medicare, so reducing the isolated "commie"-style care they currently get, and having their medical distributed via normal Docs, would open their eyes to how good they've got it ... and they'll still vote for the people who cut their care every single time already.
Debt = China loves this cash cow because their economy is worse and they need it to keep going to keep their's from flying apart, this is THE biggest lobby, see all the Chamber Of Commerce branches that opened up world wide immediately  after Citizens United.
Social Security = technically it's a gov insured retirement savings plan, economically fine (by itself) all the way out the the 2070s.  I have no idea how this is figured.  However, it's monies have been diverted, oops. The basic deal is gramma and grampa would be in total abject poverty if SSi didn't exist and they have had a suspicious tendency to go real legit Socialist without SSi.  The ultra-cons don't want that to happen, so they promote minor privatizations of it knowing full well they won't pass.  Except whoopsy that repub congress vote in Bush 43's last term, that 1 repub Senator had to vote against to keep Chaney from having to take the fall ... which he might not have done.  Shhhh don't tell gramps.
Medicare = big problem.  The trust fund will run out very soon, and benefits will be cut immediately.  Good luck politicians for putting (or pulling) this one off.  Except Ryan's last budget included every single Repub voting to end medicare.  Shhhhh don't tell gramps.

Any serious attempt at the Debt has to go directly through these 5 biggies.
And the House, 50/50.
And the Senate. 60/40 filibuster to the extreme.
And an inevitable Presidential Veto (to cover backside), forcing 67 in the senate after re-negotiating with the House.
And repeating China too.

 :D it'll be fun.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on August 12, 2016, 02:25:07 PM
Big News ... North Carolina lost their redistricting+Gerrymandering case.
This effects almost every Current congressional district, and any 2022 redistricting too.
edit --- some have been done via commissions the Supremes have said are OK.

Common Cause has been at this for a long time.  This is their fact sheet.
http://www.commoncause.org/issues/voting-and-elections/redistricting/common-cause-v-rucho/

Woo Hoo hooray for Democracy.
{ ... insert old wotc dancing smiley face ... }
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on August 12, 2016, 05:06:43 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Libertad on August 14, 2016, 03:36:42 PM
Click here for dank Hillary memes. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoXDe8HxHBA)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Chemus on August 14, 2016, 05:08:42 PM
I think it's been strongly shown that you can't fix a deficit by cutting spending, because that just slows the economy down because there's less money moving around...

Cutting wasteful spending; pork, unnecessary subsidies, bad decisions by bureaucrats, pseudo-embezzlement, etc., Should be the first thing done. And your contention that cutting spending does slow down the economy is not entirely correct. If public spending is a large part of the economy, it can slow down the economy. As can increasing taxes. I'd bet that the latter slows the economy faster and to a greater extent than the former.

Growing the economy is a major way to reduce a deficit. Good luck with that, as it's hard to just make it happen. Deregulation can help, but that's a big bad no-no.

Even growth won't fix why a deficit exists: those who are spending the money do exactly nothing that produces any!
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on August 15, 2016, 06:44:13 PM
Rudy Giuliani of all people forgot about 9/11.  Or....maybe he knows something....he did specify "radical Islamic attack"....so maybe....did he just admit Bush did 7/11?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on August 16, 2016, 02:29:37 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weeNYQg_j04
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on August 16, 2016, 02:54:57 AM
Rudy Giuliani of all people forgot about 9/11.  Or....maybe he knows something....he did specify "radical Islamic attack"....so maybe....did he just admit Bush did 7/11?

Many people are saying it - many smart people. The best people. Why won't Bush release the transcripts? It's gotta be big, folks.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on August 16, 2016, 03:07:07 PM
https://thinkprogress.org/disgraced-former-fox-news-ceo-joins-trump-campaign-5e9b11054a5b#.lscwquihy
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on August 16, 2016, 04:24:23 PM
solo  :lmao

bhu  :lol

... this keeps getting better and "better".

edit --- Now he's added the Breitbart guy too.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on August 21, 2016, 08:50:31 PM
The DoJ is no longer using private prisons for federal cases, and has also now said set bail minimums are unconstitutional.  huh.  Saving all the prison reforms you promised until the last 6 months I see.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Libertad on August 22, 2016, 03:36:49 AM
Many people are saying it - many smart people. The best people. Why won't Bush release the transcripts? It's gotta be big, folks.

This is a great video about how the dude speaks and why. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aFo_BV-UzI)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Libertad on August 27, 2016, 02:37:53 PM
Jill Stein picked...well, an interesting choice, as her VP pick. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajamu_Baraka)

Looking at his Wikipedia page, he's like a cross between a Devil's Advocate contrarian who has to pick a fight with everybody. Some of his points might be legitimate, but when you're swinging punches everywhere...

He claimed that the Boko Haram terrorist group did not kidnap and rape 276+ girls and was instead a false flag operation. And that the vigil for the murdered staff members of Charlie Hebdo newspaper was a white power rally. And getting angry at Cornel West for supporting Bernie Sanders back in 2015 for "sheepdogging voters into a corrupt party."
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on August 29, 2016, 06:23:17 PM
Heh ha ... urp  :pout


**


Iceland is running a CO2 capture experiment right now.
CO2 + Tums (yeah that) + lots of water + volcanic basalt = it works but it's not cheap.
Video is about 9 minutes, some subtitles and a transcript.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/combat-climate-change-scientists-turning-co2-rock/
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on August 29, 2016, 06:28:52 PM
Trump is hiring LePages daughter to help get out the vote in Maine...
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on August 29, 2016, 09:58:12 PM
Mainers do not like him all that much. Some do, yes, but not a lot of them.  I can see Clinton getting 2 votes, and Trump and Johnson each getting one there.  maybe Trump gets two of them, but it's gonna be close.  I really think Clinton's getting two of the votes there, and Johnson may get one.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on August 31, 2016, 06:19:45 PM
Except for a Trump fixation,
Johnson should have the advert airwaves all to himself
in both Lincoln Nebraska and Portland Maine.

Perhaps the voters there will take it upon themselves
to get their 1 electoral vote to be more meaningful.
Perhaps.
538 has it at ~0.1% chance; as in not zero.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on September 06, 2016, 04:22:49 PM
Texas state poll, has it currently 40/40/11 + 3 for green.
Variously reported as 45/46 and 46/47 when just the two candidates.

Dead heat in Texas is nearly unbelievable, and it still hasn't had the full impact of Trump's Mexico run + losing half his Hispanic advisors.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on September 08, 2016, 09:37:41 AM
Gary Johnson just had his Uzbekibekibekibekistanstan moment  :lmao

Reporter: "What would you do about Allepo"

Johnson: "and what is Allepo?"
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on September 10, 2016, 03:00:55 AM
And proving he's a better candidate than Trump, Johnson admitted to being disappointed in himself that he made that mistake. 
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: oslecamo on September 10, 2016, 03:53:25 AM
How could you be a worst candidate than Trump? He's been literally advocating for the bombing of civilian targets and hunting down of non-white people.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on September 10, 2016, 10:33:01 AM
You could literally be Moussolini?  You know, instead of just aspiring to be like him?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on September 10, 2016, 06:16:37 PM
You could literally be Moussolini?  You know, instead of just aspiring to be like him?
Trump's more of a Berlusconi.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on September 11, 2016, 02:37:17 AM
How could you be a worst candidate than Trump? He's been literally advocating for the bombing of civilian targets and hunting down of non-white people.
You could be Jeb.  Forgotten about before the first ballot was cast.  But that's a different kind of worse candidate.
You could literally be Moussolini?  You know, instead of just aspiring to be like him?
Trump's more of a Berlusconi.
He's more of a Dumbasso.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on September 19, 2016, 07:59:45 PM
RRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH*

*I just want to express my displeasure as to the current state of affairs in US and global politics, what with the looming Chinese war, the looming DPRK issues, the Presidential race, Russia's issues, and Britain's issues.  This is far from an exhaustive list, but I am also tired of people pre-blaming me for President Trump.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on September 19, 2016, 08:47:22 PM
The UK's issues are comparatively minor compared to the chance of having exploded the entire EU by proxy.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on September 19, 2016, 08:58:56 PM
From what I've read, the EU is much better off than the UK after that stuff?  That they have a much more stable situation, for example.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on September 19, 2016, 09:34:12 PM
When it comes to a position from which to negotiate, sure--though the UK is still a big market in Europe, so that's a thing to remember. But the political disagreements and frustrations are boiling over everywhere, and one member voting out is potentially a catalyst.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on September 19, 2016, 10:43:28 PM
That is true, but economically,essentially, however bad Europe is because of the exit, the UKis worse.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on September 19, 2016, 11:07:53 PM
That is true, but economically,essentially, however bad Europe is because of the exit, the UKis worse.

Unless the EU falls to pieces as a direct response.

And the UK's economic troubles, as problematic as they might be for me, are less severe than the whole of Europe descending into chaos.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on September 19, 2016, 11:56:47 PM
And we're not going to bail them out again.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on September 20, 2016, 12:37:24 AM
And we're not going to bail them out again.

There's, what, the debt crisis in the Med coupled with Eurozone obstructions, France's terrorism woes combined with a rising right, an eastern wing with migrant troubles, Russia dicking about on the fringes, and Catalan determined to get free? The lid's off, now.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on September 22, 2016, 05:42:00 PM
I liked the book and the movie of Michael Lewis :  The Big Short.

He explains the advantage Iceland had and has over Ireland,
with it's own currency, it could negotiate it's sovereign debt better.
idk the specifics = way over my pay grade, but the movie is more fun.
(Economics is rarely as zexy as Brad Pitt and Ryan Gosling and Selena Gomez).

I think the Germans don't wanna let the ongoing debt crisis get
totally out-of-hand.  They're working so hard (it seems) to keep
Greece IN, and that tips their hand all by itself.

I wouldn't be surprised if a casual 1 step dial-back goes official
and a 2 step "velvet" separation gets fast-tracked.
It's like when that dude shouts Order-Order when the PM is Q'd.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on September 23, 2016, 04:03:19 AM
Really?  Because Germany's actions regarding the Greek debt crisis looks like they're trying to make it worse to me.  The absurd austerity demands are exactly the kinds of cuts that historically lead to worsening depressions.  Its like someone really wants to buy a Greek island or twelve on the cheap.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on September 23, 2016, 04:29:58 PM
Well not me, but I think it's clear the Money-ed class generally prefers Austerity, and more severe than the Chicago school.  They think it's going to work (again) and they'll keep trying it independent of results (again). 

I guess I didn't specify tactics and belief.  If the Germans thought everything would be rosier with Greece out of the Euro, I'd assume it would have happened by now.  Maybe they think they have more leverage this way, maybe they don't care about the results at all, just the connectivity.  Greece almost certainly would have been better off like Iceland without the Euro.


**

Polls hanging tight going into the Debates, and with no Johnson.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on September 27, 2016, 04:27:19 PM
Frank Luntz is the Fox News media researcher dude.
His focus group while stacked toward his preferences,
said the debate went 6 Trump 16 Hillary.  His tracking
stuff shows how differently this stuff plays with the truly
independent voter.

PolitiFact was live tweeting Fact checks they had
all ready to go.  Some standard stock whoppers.

MSNBC had an after focus group in Ohio and a totally
silvered granma ~said something like :
I vote conservative, and even if he's a Jack@ss.
You go granma!  It was pretty funny, live.

Maybe a 1 or 2 point bump for Hill, zeroing out soon.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on September 28, 2016, 03:01:19 PM
It's time of a global roundup of where things are awful and explody!

South China Sea is a powder keg, with the Chinese acting super aggressive out there, running wargames, building islands to claim new waters and territory and build bases, and otherwise acting like they want to mess.  Combine with North Korea essentially 'calling our bluff' against S. Korea and the US, saying they want to do things to us.  Nasty things.  It's cute....except they might be able to soon because the Chinese are helping them (wtf?  They were helping them, but kinda sorta not really, now they're doing more and helping their nukes stuff out?)

India vs. Pakistan is getting into its old groove again, with India's PM essentially threatening to violate a treaty signed in the 50's, with India threatening to cut off water via tributaries in Pakistan.  So threatening a water war.  It's kind of on a simmer sort of deal right now?  But it's always a hot button issue, things in Kashmir.

Russia is awful.  And Putin really wants the Cold War to happen again, although maybe a little hotter.  Evidence points to Russian made missiles taking down MH17 back all that time ago.  Russia has almost certainly bombed an aid caravan (a war crime, they absolutely knew it was an aid convoy, and almost certainly were one of two entities that bombed it), and now may have bombed a number of hospitals (also a war crime!)

Syria is just a mess, period.

Colombia has been just a constant hotbed of fighting for the past 60 years, with that civil war raging.  And I mean, it only gets worse every year, it's like...wait, what?  They signed a peace treaty?  And it looks like it's going to hold up?  Huh, I guess not every part of the world is constantly exploding!
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: ketaro on September 29, 2016, 02:03:29 AM
Congress just passed a law that allows the families to 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia.

I can't wait till everybody else uses this as an example to start suing the US for all of our fucked up shit.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on September 29, 2016, 02:40:21 AM
Fortunately, I have stocked up on canned food and ammunition.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: ketaro on September 29, 2016, 02:41:55 AM
Fortunately, I have stocked up on canned food and ammunition.

It's too bad you forgot guns for all those bullets  :rolleyes
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Libertad on September 29, 2016, 02:51:10 PM
Congress just passed a law that allows the families to 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia.

I can't wait till everybody else uses this as an example to start suing the US for all of our fucked up shit.

I'm sure many Iraqis are jumping with joy over this.

However it's believed that Obama plans to veto the bill exactly for this precedent.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on September 29, 2016, 02:56:04 PM
Congress just passed a law that allows the families to 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia.

I can't wait till everybody else uses this as an example to start suing the US for all of our fucked up shit.

I'm sure many Iraqis are jumping with joy over this.

However it's believed that Obama plans to veto the bill exactly for this precedent.

The veto got defeated, because for some reason almost all the legislature was in favour of it.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on September 29, 2016, 05:27:36 PM
Yep.  Passed, veto'ed, House+Senate overrode the veto.

W didn't have one until his 7th year.
Those 2 together is a really  long time to have such left-right polarization.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: ketaro on September 29, 2016, 06:27:19 PM
Only one person voted against the bill too gosh

Edit: I just read that Republicans are suddenly regrettingbthe bill AND are blaming Obama for their ignoring of his veto because he "didn't make the consequences of this bill clear enough".
Mitch McConnell quote there ????
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on September 29, 2016, 06:44:24 PM
Only one person voted against the bill too gosh

Edit: I just read that Republicans are suddenly regrettingbthe bill AND are blaming Obama for their ignoring of his veto because he "didn't make the consequences of this bill clear enough".
Mitch McConnell quote there ????

I think about three people abstained from voting on it.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on September 30, 2016, 01:04:39 AM
Also fun: the bill has absolutely no enforcement provision.  So even if you go to the time and expense its prolly up to you to collect the rewards.  Good luck with that...
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: ketaro on September 30, 2016, 05:22:21 AM
I find it really funny that Congress thought even once that laws passed in the U.S. are automatically also laws internationally and that other countries would be assumed to follow it in this case. Yanno, in regards to this 9/11 bill. :p
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on September 30, 2016, 10:14:00 AM
For dumb election year laws, this one takes the cake.  The fallout will be popcorn worthy.  Who would have though that the only sane person in the Senate would be Harry Reid?!  If Mitch McTurtle suddenly becomes the voice of reason, I'm stowing away on the next SpaceX rocket to Mars.  Because that means Ai ai C'thu'lu F'taghn.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on September 30, 2016, 03:34:44 PM
WTF

7th grade civics class is too much, to get paid north of $ 100 000 ?

 :banghead
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on October 06, 2016, 05:17:22 PM
So the hurricane is a real tragedy ... but ...

Hurricane hits Mar-A-Lago.


Hey who's side do you think God is on?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: phaedrusxy on October 06, 2016, 06:10:46 PM
Only one person voted against the bill too gosh

Edit: I just read that Republicans are suddenly regrettingbthe bill AND are blaming Obama for their ignoring of his veto because he "didn't make the consequences of this bill clear enough".
Mitch McConnell quote there ????
McConnell is easily the stupidest person in the house and an exemplar of the geographic region he represents... which is why I fled from there as if on fire as soon as I was old enough to.  :P

Yeah... I've always wanted to go to Mars anyway...
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on October 06, 2016, 08:03:20 PM
So the hurricane is a real tragedy ... but ...

Hurricane hits Mar-A-Lago.


Hey who's side do you think God is on?

Also, there are hurricane truthers.  Drudge and Limbaugh are saying it's not bad and the liberals are hyping it up as a false flag to make global warming seem legitimate.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on October 06, 2016, 08:15:20 PM
So the hurricane is a real tragedy ... but ...

Hurricane hits Mar-A-Lago.


Hey who's side do you think God is on?

Also, there are hurricane truthers.  Drudge and Limbaugh are saying it's not bad and the liberals are hyping it up as a false flag to make global warming seem legitimate.

Of all the things... how?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on October 06, 2016, 08:20:20 PM
Drudge is crazy.  He's also saying that you shouldn't evacuate because it's a liberal plot to steal the election.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on October 06, 2016, 08:22:08 PM
It's a hurricane that already killed people (and formed a skull of all things) before pointing itself at Florida. And the idiot is trying to get his supporters killed over accusations of a conspiracy? The entire point about warnings is that even if they're false, listen anyway just in case.

... also, really? It's a liberal conspiracy if a Republican governor issues an evacuation warning?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on October 06, 2016, 08:56:09 PM
Chlorine for the gene pool.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: KellKheraptis on October 06, 2016, 09:51:51 PM
Chlorine for the gene pool.

Not strong enough...I propose something more along the lines of phosphoric acid or lava (pick your elimination method...being a pyromancer, I'm kinda partial to lava myself).
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on October 06, 2016, 09:54:36 PM
If he's so confident evacuation isn't necessary, he should be made to sit on a beach it's going to pass.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on October 07, 2016, 04:13:37 PM
Heh, Rush is big enough he could sit on the beach in a Cat 4, and he'd be fine.

Anybody else watching might have passed out already ...
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on October 08, 2016, 07:09:19 PM
So Drudge and Limbaugh fans could die?  I think that's the real Liberal plot!  Dun. Dun.  DUN!
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on October 09, 2016, 04:16:35 PM
Colbert had a good 1 liner.
SNL was just about spot on.

The "Roast of Donald Trump" has to have been
an intentional cover pre-plan for this sort of behavior.
(by the way, that show was hilarious)

The debate tonite, is gonna be rancid.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on October 11, 2016, 09:18:00 AM
I....I don't know...am I dead?  Is this purgatory?  I mean, I thought I knew how the world worked, and I thought things were weird this year, but this is the last straw.  I mean, This just...it's not something that happens.  Glenn Beck...endorsed....Hillary? He hasn't been a Trump supporter, but...he actually endorsed Hillary.  What kind of bizsarro world is this?

EDIT: I should add a word of disclaimer,I'm not 100% convinced this is true, given where I've heard it from, but he has come close to endorsing her before.  He has said that Trump needs to not be elected, and everything must be done to avoid this, etc. etc.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on October 11, 2016, 05:25:58 PM
It's true.  He said if Clinton being elected is the result of dumping trump, then so be it, thats the ethical choice.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on October 11, 2016, 05:44:37 PM
 :o :twitch
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on October 12, 2016, 04:19:24 PM
Utah polls have become VERY interesting.

26 - 26 - Evan McMullin 22 - Johnson 14

 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865664606/Poll-Trump-falls-into-tie-with-Clinton-among-Utah-voters.html?pg=all
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on October 12, 2016, 05:12:47 PM
http://usuncut.com/politics/right-wing-pastor-better-trump-grab-psy-one/  In other news, local asshole Dave Daubenmire is at it again...
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on October 13, 2016, 05:23:16 PM
Ooooo Booooyyyyy  :P that's the argument conservative churches use to have no women in upper "man"-agement , i.e. their own churches, not other churches.  Now they want to impose it around everywhere?


Along those lines :  #repealthe19th , was trending on twitter.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/repealthe19th?src=hash
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on October 14, 2016, 10:04:58 PM
Trump has become the Red badge of Stupid.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: altpersona on October 14, 2016, 10:32:20 PM
if nate silvers people have it right (they are pretty good), the race isnt nearly as close as it seems. seems clinton could loose california and still have the electoral college.

of course, thats just statistics ymmv
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on October 14, 2016, 10:51:00 PM
if nate silvers people have it right (they are pretty good), the race isnt nearly as close as it seems. seems clinton could loose california and still have the electoral college.

of course, thats just statistics ymmv

That one site is enough to point out all the flaws with giving straight poll results (though it then goes several steps further, naturally)

Anyone that assumes a trend where someone has x% more support means that they have a x% higher chance of winning needs to be introduced to the idea that polls aren't odds, ffs.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on October 16, 2016, 04:34:29 PM
538 is good stuff, he's been better than anyone else.
But yeah the polls aren't perfect, nor last minute voter sentiment.

Google's own voter surveys were running about +5% for Trump
for months, but their most recent poll lined up with everyone else.

538 did have to re-do some portion on Utah
with Evan McMullin getting a solid Mormon vote
and some small boost beyond that.
4 candidates getting real support, is kinda new.

Saw an Evan McMullin sign up on a neighbor's yard.
I'm no where near Utah.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Libertad on October 16, 2016, 08:32:13 PM
http://usuncut.com/politics/right-wing-pastor-better-trump-grab-psy-one/  In other news, local asshole Dave Daubenmire is at it again...

It seems that these evangelicals aren't even pretending to be Christian anymore.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on October 18, 2016, 07:01:05 PM
There's definitely a bit of a split going on, inside The camp, in the Evangelical + Politics people.

The South Carolina radio talk show crowd noticed it first, around that state's primary.
The Romney repubs revolted (of sorts) shortly after.
And now even some diehard women supporters, are finding the latest batch too much.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-women-condemn-donald-trump-sin-misogyny-170911/
Liberty U pops up in that article too.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on October 20, 2016, 05:44:59 PM
Glad I missed most of the debate, normal Politifact whoppers being told.

Trump told Chris Wallace the exact opposite thing about Nukes, a few months ago. Wallace ignores the flip.

Trump pussyfooting around whether he'll accept the results of the Election.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on October 20, 2016, 06:06:34 PM
I think the most amusing thing was actually Trump saying "I have more respect for women than anybody else".
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on October 20, 2016, 10:05:30 PM
I think the most amusing thing was actually Trump saying "I have more respect for women than anybody else".

Even women themselves.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on October 21, 2016, 12:42:20 AM
Deuterte, already racking up some impressive numbers in the "killing his own citizens" department, has now said 'screw off US, we're BFFs with China now.'

Wonderful.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on October 22, 2016, 03:29:13 PM
Impeach Trump, has been around for a while, but
I think it might reach critical mass in the last run up.

Bring him up on the same charges leveled against
Bill Clinton, both the zexy and the lying.  Big diff?
Trump has already publicly confessed both.
And has admitted to guiltier behavior, on tape.

'Cept for a few days of paperwork shuffling
within a few hours, there'd be a President Pence.
 :o  :clap

Here's a UofUtah Prof's legal brief
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2841306
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on October 22, 2016, 03:37:18 PM
Deuterte, already racking up some impressive numbers in the "killing his own citizens" department, has now said 'screw off US, we're BFFs with China now.'

Wonderful.

And Russia.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on October 23, 2016, 03:48:12 PM
It's kinda weird that Deuterte thinks the US wouldn't support him
in his tough-on-crime "W"ar.  We did that in Columbia + Mexico
and are doing it in Honduras + El Salvador.

Total waste of money, but the "people" love it.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on October 30, 2016, 02:43:49 PM

... but I am also tired of people pre-blaming me for President Trump.

Heh.
The US election system is screwy and deliberately opaque.
What ever Coalition (!) gets put together, happens in total vagueness.

If we had a realistic RunOff set-up, there could have been a phase of
Trump 28% , random Repub 22% , Hillary 27% , Bernie 23%

So the next round would'a been Trump v Hillary v Bernie,
and none would get to 50%, so Hill + Bern groups together.


That said, I think I'll get the chance to vote for 2 different 3rd party candidates
this go round, lower down the ticket.  Neither will win, but it's a good use of my vote.


edit :  RunOff not Re-Off
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on November 01, 2016, 11:56:13 AM
Instant run-off elections would be the best.  (Well almost the best.  Banishing political parties to the cornfield would be the best.)

If we had that, we'd probably be looking at Trump vs. Sanders right now.  Weep.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: KellKheraptis on November 01, 2016, 01:41:22 PM
Instant run-off elections would be the best.  (Well almost the best.  Banishing political parties to the cornfield would be the best.)

If we had that, we'd probably be looking at Trump vs. Sanders right now.  Weep.

Banishing political parties by spacing them out of an airlock in deep space and making sure they're attached to lobbyists, especially corporate and religious lobbyists, would be a good start.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SorO_Lost on November 01, 2016, 03:03:39 PM
One question, at this point have you conceded the Presidential position is just a puppet show and no matter who is in office things won't change or are you convinced the election matters but it's so rigged you will never be able to vote for the people that could actually do a good job in office?

Also someone needs to give me Superman's powers. Just saying, can we make that a thing?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: FireInTheSky on November 01, 2016, 08:34:41 PM
One question, at this point have you conceded the Presidential position is just a puppet show and no matter who is in office things won't change or are you convinced the election matters but it's so rigged you will never be able to vote for the people that could actually do a good job in office?

Are those my only 2 choices?  :bigeyes
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 02, 2016, 05:37:15 PM
The Targetsmart poll that MSNBC reported
is quite strange.  It's using possibly acceptable
methodology on it's normal polling, but buried
under all that goo, is perhaps the best Exit Poll
ever conducted ; but again, lets see the how
their methodology performs.  538 doesn't have
anything (!) about them.

It's a massive outlier too, having Hill up +17%
in what every other poll has nearly dead even.


EDIT --- and as a 100% contra ...

North Carolina, Black, early voting, is -16% from '12.
Again no idea about methodology, laws have changed,
legit semi-illegal suppression, or lower turnout.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 05, 2016, 03:16:27 PM
Went looking for dudes not so ++ about 538, and found this guy :

http://election.princeton.edu/

 :flutter or  :fu or  :pout

Also some very-inside-baseball critiques of 538.

Amechra can you translate some of this High Math down to hazy freshman Calculus level ??
 :bigeyes
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 07, 2016, 06:22:17 PM
15 states within the margin-of-error, along with Maine's and Nebraska's 2nd districts.
Utah and Alaska don't have specific enough polling too.
That's >> 30% of the Electoral map, up in the air.

I don't think any of the pollsters have adjusted their techniques
to deal with how much Early Voting has taken place, and how
that skews polling responses.  I wouldn't go so far as to say
their results of this last week are inaccurate, but they are NOT
up to the quality of polls before early voting. 
See the Targetsmart post 2 back, the numbers are waayyyy different.

I'm'n'a go see the Dr Strange movie tomorrow, somehow appropriate.

Bhu --- someone giving you a ride to the polls?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on November 07, 2016, 10:17:38 PM
Already voted by mail.  Too many neo-nazi loons out this year to risk polls.

Looks like the election killed my gaming group too.  :bigeyes
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: altpersona on November 07, 2016, 10:35:33 PM
Im anti trump
(click to show/hide)
and anti clinton
(click to show/hide)
, but.... im less anti clinton than trump.

the good news is im in a state where my vote is not important  :lmao

all these shmuchks around me buy in to every lame slander attempt that comes up. #WhatDidHarambeKnowAboutHRC

even the ones that read actual books and study... but im getting side tracked again...

so, back to 538.. i like the tug of war map they have.

but then i read how Silver has a trump problem, he has been fucking up the trump predictions since last year.

 :banghead
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on November 07, 2016, 10:51:06 PM
but then i read how Silver has a trump problem, he has been fucking up the trump predictions since last year.

Mind giving links? I'm no good at sourcing things.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on November 07, 2016, 10:57:52 PM
I recommend Adam Todd Brown for someone who predicted the Trump thing from the start ;)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: altpersona on November 07, 2016, 11:01:07 PM
but then i read how Silver has a trump problem, he has been fucking up the trump predictions since last year.

Mind giving links? I'm no good at sourcing things.

http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/nate-silvers-very-very-wrong-predictions-about-donald-t-1788583912
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: altpersona on November 07, 2016, 11:02:06 PM
I recommend Adam Todd Brown for someone who predicted the Trump thing from the start ;)

the guy from Cracked? that is very illustrative
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on November 07, 2016, 11:31:24 PM
but then i read how Silver has a trump problem, he has been fucking up the trump predictions since last year.

Mind giving links? I'm no good at sourcing things.

http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/nate-silvers-very-very-wrong-predictions-about-donald-t-1788583912

The biggest flaw with that is the admitted apology for getting pundit-y about Trump after he got the nomination based on absurdity and initial numbers. Plus its last cited article being from December... honestly, that's a pretty weak argument he's putting up. "He got it wrong about the primaries on this side, therefore his conclusions have no basis". It would seem less dismissive if 538 had not, in fact, been predicting a Trump win by one measure in July.

Also, the worst way to dismiss something that gives a probability of victory is "it got it wrong". Or looking at the editorials.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: altpersona on November 07, 2016, 11:35:52 PM
but then i read how Silver has a trump problem, he has been fucking up the trump predictions since last year.

Mind giving links? I'm no good at sourcing things.

http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/nate-silvers-very-very-wrong-predictions-about-donald-t-1788583912

The biggest flaw with that is the admitted apology for getting pundit-y about Trump after he got the nomination based on absurdity and initial numbers. Plus its last cited article being from December... honestly, that's a pretty weak argument he's putting up. "He got it wrong about the primaries on this side, therefore his conclusions have no basis". It would seem less dismissive if 538 had not, in fact, been predicting a Trump win by one measure in July.

Also, the worst way to dismiss something that gives a probability of victory is "it got it wrong". Or looking at the editorials.

you're such a sweet talker   :flutter

Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on November 08, 2016, 12:27:26 AM
Mind giving links? I'm no good at sourcing things.

http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/nate-silvers-very-very-wrong-predictions-about-donald-t-1788583912

The biggest flaw with that is the admitted apology for getting pundit-y about Trump after he got the nomination based on absurdity and initial numbers. Plus its last cited article being from December... honestly, that's a pretty weak argument he's putting up. "He got it wrong about the primaries on this side, therefore his conclusions have no basis". It would seem less dismissive if 538 had not, in fact, been predicting a Trump win by one measure in July.

Also, the worst way to dismiss something that gives a probability of victory is "it got it wrong". Or looking at the editorials.

you're such a sweet talker   :flutter

It's not my fault those are weak arguments. Only citing things from before the primaries finished is just lazy. xD
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on November 08, 2016, 12:56:28 AM
The point will become moot in 24 hours. I see no reason to lose sleep over it.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 08, 2016, 05:03:00 PM
altP ... Libertarian an option for you?

Mind giving links? I'm no good at sourcing things.

http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/nate-silvers-very-very-wrong-predictions-about-donald-t-1788583912

The biggest flaw with that is the admitted apology for getting pundit-y about Trump after he got the nomination based on absurdity and initial numbers. Plus its last cited article being from December... honestly, that's a pretty weak argument he's putting up. "He got it wrong about the primaries on this side, therefore his conclusions have no basis". It would seem less dismissive if 538 had not, in fact, been predicting a Trump win by one measure in July.

Also, the worst way to dismiss something that gives a probability of victory is "it got it wrong". Or looking at the editorials.

you're such a sweet talker   :flutter

It's not my fault those are weak arguments. Only citing things from before the primaries finished is just lazy. xD


I posted this guy, just on the last thread page :  http://election.princeton.edu/
... and he's not exactly a lite weight.
There are some very-inside-baseball reasons for their disagreement.
And yeah Nate himself has gotten rather defensive on National TV about it.

Gotta dethrone the champ solidly ... but I do like the getting of more viewpoints involved.

There isn't any data available, to model the director of the FBI going all Drama Queen on the election.
Stop - in the name of Uncle Sam - before I literally break your heart.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: altpersona on November 08, 2016, 05:06:02 PM
altP ... Libertarian an option for you?

oh god no, id vote trump before lib

i wrote in Ken Bone :D
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 08, 2016, 05:17:06 PM
Heh ... or Karl Becker the "name one positive thing that you respect in one another” guy.


Given how this election has been, I voted, but I feel like this ...

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/df/Milk_and_Cheese.jpg/250px-Milk_and_Cheese.jpg)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 08, 2016, 05:21:31 PM
Already voted by mail. 

Good deal.

Quote
Too many neo-nazi loons out this year to risk polls.

My local voting spot, had the former Chief Of Police, camped out right next to the ballot collecting machine.

Quote
Looks like the election killed my gaming group too.  :bigeyes

Dang.  I asked one of my guys, to not ride his "wrong" motorcycle to work on Wednesday, just to be safe.

Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: FireInTheSky on November 08, 2016, 09:29:22 PM
Re:538 - Most of the defense boils down to the fact that Trump is an outlier, and predictive models, by their nature, never do well with those. But people want to make fun of them because their numbers didn't predict this, which is just dumb and petty since (basically) no one did.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: RedWarlock on November 08, 2016, 10:21:31 PM
I am fucking terrified right now, as is my boyfriend. He's trying to avoid news, I'm glued to it while I cook dinner. There is no escape.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on November 08, 2016, 11:26:59 PM
"I'm good for business."

World markets all begin to plummet.

Everyone should have seen this coming.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on November 09, 2016, 12:23:58 AM
Re:538 - Most of the defense boils down to the fact that Trump is an outlier, and predictive models, by their nature, never do well with those. But people want to make fun of them because their numbers didn't predict this, which is just dumb and petty since (basically) no one did.

The irony of this is that 538 DID actually predict this, somewhat.  As the election day approached, they got guffawed at for raising Trump's chance of winning to 35%. HuffPo had theirs at 2% or something.  So 538 DID see this coming.  Their models worked.  They weren't accurate because they knew there was more uncertainty, and the uncertainty covered the spread.

Also, Bernie absolutely would have won Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.  He cannot be attacked the same way Clinton can be, and his strength is Trump's strength.  He would have beaten the tar out of Trump.  Sure the margins in places like Kansas would be higher for Trump in that scenario, but it's Kansas.  He was winning that anyways.  I would bet that Sanders would have even won Florida.  Arizona.  Nevada.  New Hampshire.  Maine.  Indiana even!That's flipping two HUGE states that Trump won, and guaranteeing four huge ones that are close.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on November 09, 2016, 01:50:37 AM
(For those in my games, sorry about the delay.  I should be posting soon.)

Welp.  Looks like this is ending.  Back to the Future Bad Future confirmed.

...and I wish I could say I was surprised.

Actually one thing that did surprise me is that everything seems to be turning red.  I figured the Senate would go blue.  Well, Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on November 09, 2016, 02:08:03 AM
You know what this is right?  We all are paying the price to end the Curse of the Billygoat.  The Cubs win the World Series, and in return Trump wins the presidency.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: oslecamo on November 09, 2016, 03:04:53 AM
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/113/936/949.png)

Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on November 09, 2016, 04:00:28 AM
I'm disappointed in America.  But I'm not surprised.   Just profoundly disappointed.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Stratovarius on November 09, 2016, 06:32:56 AM
I'm disappointed in America.  But I'm not surprised.   Just profoundly disappointed.

Me too. And I have to live here...
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on November 09, 2016, 09:31:27 AM
Indiana got rid of Pence only to have him running the country.  Trump said Pence was going to be in charge of "foreign and domestic affairs".  And as a replacement, we get Holcomb, Pence's Lt. Gov.  We voted out Glenda Ritz, who was changing our education system for the better, for the Republican replacement, someone who wants private schools to receive all the public funding while ignoring public schools.  Exactly what Pence and the private schools who paid Pence wanted to do this whole time.  Pence set up a committee to act as superintendent usurping power from Ritz a while ago, but it folded after constitutional pressure on account of it being freaking illegal.  Pence also tried to make a new government agency, a ministry of the press, essentially, which would release all government news.  ALL of it.  It would have had to go through this ministry.  We also elected Todd Young.  Todd Young is essentially a local official in rural Texas.  He believes not only in your right to bear arms, but your right to use said arms to pre-defend yourself from turrursts.  Also known as hate crimes.  He wants to delete the ACA and go back to insurance companies not having any regulations on them.  So he wants to delete 90 years of the regulations on them.  It's worth noting he gets a good bit of money from lobbying firms that want that.

All of this probably could have been avoided with Sanders being the Democratic nominee.  Except Todd Young.  but that's just part of my point here.  The Todd Young/Evan Bayh race here was a microcosm of the presidential election.  Young is racist and xenophobic.  We all knew he had a chance.  But the Democrats, thinking it would have been an easy race, convinced Bayh, an ex-governor and senator turned lobbyist, to run guaranteeing him the race.  And it seemed like it was a lock until one week before the election.  When CNN uncovered that Bayh broke ethics rules in his senate days, meeting with lobbyists/fundraising in his office.  So he's a lobbyist who broke rules to meet with and curry favor with other lobbyists. He couldn't recover from that.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: RobbyPants on November 09, 2016, 10:00:30 AM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Nanshork on November 09, 2016, 10:14:20 AM
Well in four years we'll be able to pick up the pieces (hopefully).  My mom is terrified that Trump is going to piss off one of the many crazy world leaders out there and get us attacked.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Necrosnoop110 on November 09, 2016, 12:56:36 PM
Presidential Election Results: Donald J. Trump Wins (https://youtu.be/Tim5nU3DwIE)  :shakefist  :banghead
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Kuroimaken on November 09, 2016, 01:03:43 PM
OK, first of all, this.

(http://i.giphy.com/3oriO4Em2dKTdmX7hu.gif)

Second of all, please do not cry because Trump won. He feeds on your tears.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Chemus on November 09, 2016, 01:58:10 PM
Really? Trump is incompetent and evil?

If his policies listed in his campaign take shape, America's government might take control of who enters the country, might stop making unfavorable trade deals, and might stop borrowing fake money (that last one is a real pipe dream...). We might actually have states' rights again, but nothing I've heard says we will.

I voted Trump because I would have voted any candidate that I thought had a chance of winning who would even try to reduce the size and reach of government, especially the Federal gubment, into my life. I would have voted for Kruse, Rubio, or Carson. I'd have thrown up if Kasich had been the (R) candidate and gotten ready for his opponent to win.

I also voted for Trump because I'm tired of having to be silent about being a Conservative Republican. I'm not religious, but the backlash against anyone who's a Christian repels me. I'm personally against abortion; I see very little moral difference between killing a fetus and infanticide; one is merely less visible than the other. Yes it's the woman's body, but she has other choices than abortion; choose not to have sex, or choose to use effective birth control, or choose to adopt the baby out. I want the Fed. Gov. to only have the powers that are granted in the US Constitution. I want actual free speech; right now if I say that gay marriage is useless (not reprehensible, just pointless), I get yelled down or demeaned so that I won't say it again. I'm done shutting up, and it's my opinion that many voted for Trump for the same reason; his example of speaking his mind and still succeeding might actually increase the honesty in politics (yet another pipe dream).



One reason 'all the polls' failed to predict this, excluding possible bias of the pollster, could be that folks like myself want to be left alone. You ask me how I voted as I exit a voting station, or before the actual election day, I'll politely tell you to fuck off (actually I'll just ignore the question/questioner).
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on November 09, 2016, 02:24:52 PM
Sorry Chemus, you picked the wrong one to reduce the reach of government.  Trump said Pence was essentially going to be running the country.  Pence has in the past tried to put government in control of the media, personal relationships, and healthcare to an unnerving degree.  He's tried to put government on a path to force gay people to undergo conversion therapy (at places that have donated to his campaign).  He's tried to establish a government run media company that all government news must go through.  If that doesn't scare you, it's nice to meet you Kim Jong Un.  He's tried to force private companies to ban certain demographics from service.  He's really bad.

You talk of the abortion thing?  I fully understand and sympathize with your viewpoint, even though I disagree with it.  Personally, a fetus is not a person.  Scientifically, a fetus is not a person.  There is grey area that needs serious public policy debate, however, and we are not getting that debate in lieu of a shouting match between "all abortion is wrong and evil" and "you can't restrict it at all you nazi".  However.  You have picked to back the wrong candidate here too.  Tim Kaine is anti-abortion.  Mike Pence is anti-consensual interactions between two adults.  Mike Pence supports abstinence only education, which has been proven, over and over again, to increase the danger to women of all ages, but especially under 20, with regards to STIs and unwanted pregnancies.  Pence wants to prevent teens from getting the education they need to make healthy choices.  Pence wants to restrict choices and availability for effective birth control.  He wanted to prevent insurance companies from being able to provide for them, colleges from handing out free condoms, etc.  He also wanted to make it harder to adopt babies out.  The biggest thing he wanted to do was prevent LGBT+ couples and single parents from adopting.

You want free speech?  Again, Pence wanted government controlled media.  Trump has repeatedly said he wanted to be able to restrict the free press, suing them for saying things he doesn't like, regardless of whether or not the things are true.  We already have fairly robust and actually a bit under protective freedom of speech rights, places like Breitbart and such can say things like 'Obama is an illegal alien who is literally going to kill you, personally, with his own penis'.  And they're immune to lawsuit, for the most part.

You want honesty?  We don't know how rich Trump is.  He's lied multiple times about his finances, and never released his tax returns.  Under audit?  IRS says that doesn't matter, he still could.  I'm not saying Clinton was honest, not at all.  She's pretty dishonest and bends the truth regularly.  However Trump is on another level.  He sued Nevada's Clark County for letting voters in line when polls closed still vote.  They are required by law to let them vote if they are in line, and Trump sued to prevent that.  Trump has had his businesses go bankrupt 4 times.  Two of them had a stipulation that Trump give up control of the company to someone who could run it better.  He lost money running a freaking casino.  That's illegal.  Like, from a laws of nature perspective, it's just not possible, and he somehow did it.  He regularly brags about lying to people about paying them.  He's been sued by 8 year old girls who he stiffed.  He hasn't donated to charities until called out on his lies about them, and lies about what the monies are used for.  I think the funniest lie he's told lately was his support from Tom Brady.  He said Brady voted for him on Monday.  Brady told a radio show earlier that day that he hadn't voted yet, and doesn't want to get political (he never is political).  Then his wife said unequivocally that neither she nor Brady supported Trump ever and weren't voting for him.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: ketaro on November 09, 2016, 02:44:22 PM
Like, I don't even recall hearing any actual policies from trump during his campaign. It was all "we're gonna get rid of this", "trust me, I know what I'm doing", "I know more than anyone else about this".

That was literally the gist of anything remotely policy related I ever heard him say.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Vladeshi on November 09, 2016, 03:04:07 PM
Like, I don't even recall hearing any actual policies from trump during his campaign. It was all "we're gonna get rid of this", "trust me, I know what I'm doing", "I know more than anyone else about this".

That was literally the gist of anything remotely policy related I ever heard him say.

It has been online (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/) this whole (https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf) time.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Nanshork on November 09, 2016, 03:13:16 PM
Like, I don't even recall hearing any actual policies from trump during his campaign. It was all "we're gonna get rid of this", "trust me, I know what I'm doing", "I know more than anyone else about this".

That was literally the gist of anything remotely policy related I ever heard him say.

It has been online (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/) this whole (https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf) time.

The president doesn't have the authority to do a lot of those and congress isn't going to vote restrictions for themselves that's for damn sure.

Also he's going to cut taxes and the deficit but somehow pay for all of that without stating how.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Vladeshi on November 09, 2016, 04:31:09 PM
Like, I don't even recall hearing any actual policies from trump during his campaign. It was all "we're gonna get rid of this", "trust me, I know what I'm doing", "I know more than anyone else about this".

That was literally the gist of anything remotely policy related I ever heard him say.

It has been online (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/) this whole (https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf) time.

The president doesn't have the authority to do a lot of those and congress isn't going to vote restrictions for themselves that's for damn sure.

Also he's going to cut taxes and the deficit but somehow pay for all of that without stating how.

I was not saying he can pull all of that off or that they are all good ideas, I was just stating that his policies were publicly out there.
Also not having the authority to do something does not prevent one from pushing and supporting the idea.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 09, 2016, 04:51:05 PM
The Princeton guy I linked, and a large pile of similars, were VERY WRONG.
538 still had Trump within their margin-of-error.  I'd say they got it right, probability wise.

Except Utah seems to have had a medium sized Bradley effect from McMullin toward Trump.
And there's no way to model what happened with Comey.


Even after the consistently horrible language out of Trumps mouth
Hillary compared to Obama goes :
-5% with Blacks
-5% with Hispanics
-5% with White Women no college
-5% with Under 30s
The "Obama Coalition" lasted 2 out of 5 elections, and it's done.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on November 09, 2016, 05:18:12 PM


I voted Trump because I would have voted any candidate that I thought had a chance of winning who would even try to reduce the size and reach of government, especially the Federal gubment, into my life. I would have voted for Kruse, Rubio, or Carson. I'd have thrown up if Kasich had been the (R) candidate and gotten ready for his opponent to win.

.

Then you backed the wrong horse.  As stated his policies increase our debt by 10 trillion.  He wants to expand infrastructure, expand military spending, hell expand spending in general, while cutting taxes that would pay for those changes.  He's not reducing the size of Federal government, he fully intends to expand it and always admitted he did.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Nanshork on November 09, 2016, 05:20:57 PM
Like, I don't even recall hearing any actual policies from trump during his campaign. It was all "we're gonna get rid of this", "trust me, I know what I'm doing", "I know more than anyone else about this".

That was literally the gist of anything remotely policy related I ever heard him say.

It has been online (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/) this whole (https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf) time.

The president doesn't have the authority to do a lot of those and congress isn't going to vote restrictions for themselves that's for damn sure.

Also he's going to cut taxes and the deficit but somehow pay for all of that without stating how.

I was not saying he can pull all of that off or that they are all good ideas, I was just stating that his policies were publicly out there.
Also not having the authority to do something does not prevent one from pushing and supporting the idea.

First off, I want to say that I'm not arguing with you.  I just feel the need to respond in general.

The problem with your response is that it disagrees with the language in his "contract".  There's a lot of "this will happen within the first 100 days" that he totally doesn't have the authority to do.  That annoys me (he does, not you).

It also doesn't help that most of these things he never brought up in any of the debates, and in general didn't bring up much of any defined policies.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Necrosnoop110 on November 09, 2016, 08:09:58 PM
It has begun...

LINK: Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition  (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: ketaro on November 09, 2016, 11:14:09 PM
Not to nitpick but that is from September.....
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Necrosnoop110 on November 09, 2016, 11:42:49 PM
Not to nitpick but that is from September.....
Trump's horrid transition team is on deck. And now here we go. It has begun. Here's a newer article if that helps. 

LINK: Meet Trump's Cabinet-in-waiting  (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/who-is-in-president-trump-cabinet-231071) [11/09/16 02:56 AM EST]
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: altpersona on November 10, 2016, 12:12:04 AM
(click to show/hide)

 :banghead
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Chemus on November 10, 2016, 02:15:26 AM
Then you backed the wrong horse.

Quite possibly; time will tell. I'm happier with DJT than HRC.

Interestingly, take a look at this: (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president ); specifically the counties. This is where those who support DJT (or voted against Dems/HRC) live.

And dman, I'm talking about my free speech. None of the media has spoken to or for me in decades. The media only cares about its free speech and those who agree with it. Any dissenters are demeaned and shouted down. No, I don't want government controlled media. Nor do I want government controlled health care or wages.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on November 10, 2016, 10:12:48 AM
Those of us on the left have been saying for a while now the 'MSM' has been ignoring voices for a long time.  People like Nate Silver and 538 have been pretty much on point about the polling, even using the adjustments that needed to be made to make a more accurate prediction based on who's getting talked to.  So the math and the statistics have been pretty accurate.  But the pundits haven't been.  I mean, places like Breitbart had been predicting a popular landslide for Trump.  HuffPo predicted an electoral landslide for Clinton.  This is not a case of 'your voice being unheard' it's a case of 'your voice being heard in a bubble'.  The biggest challenge facing our nation moving forward is popping those bubbles, letting other people hear our voices.  But this is not a problem with the MSM!  This is a problem with the choices people make on where they hear things!  'They' didn't listen to you not because they didn't want to, but because they couldn't hear you.  Your speech is plenty free, nothing's changed that.  But people aren't required to listen, nor should they be, and that's been the issue: they haven't been.

You are part of this problem too though.  You think 'middle America' cares about what the urban centers think?  No.  They're in a bubble too.  They see all urban centers as dens of pot, sex, drugs, and violence.  Places where no body works because they're high on government funded weed.  Liberals are all just desperate whiny babies who aren't Real Men (tm) and can't do an honest day's work.  They don't know how the world works, right?  The people who are international, from other places, and regularly interact with people from other other places?  Right, that's also a problem, as much as those urban centers see the countryside as packed full of rednecky morons who are so inbred they don't know what proper clothes are.  I mean, all they do is sit on the porch watching plants grow and thinking about banging their sister guffaw guffaw guffaw!  They don't understand that black people are okay and exist, they don't understand what it's like to miss a payment on your 500k apartment on your slavish salary.  I mean, we have a homeless problem here, right?  They don't know what it's like to be poor!  This, right here, is the disconnect.  Both sides think the other is the one who is problematic.  I think David Wong nailed this on the head better than I ever could have hoped to with his article a while ago abut Trump.  It's written to and for urban areas though (http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/), it's part of that 'listening and learning' thing you are alluding to.  It's happening, just not enough.  Every person who is protesting Trump right now thinks all Trump supporters are the same person, an Other.  All people who would be 'protesting' Clinton are the same way, except with Clinton supporters.  I have seen so many people on both sides treating every single Other as a single entity, filled with the worst qualities that side has to offer, and it hurts me.  It really hurts me.  Know that Clinton won the popular vote.  Know that Trump won a plurality share in every state he said he would. Know that neither candidate won a majority share in any state except the certains (places like CA and NY and MA for Clinton, KS, AL, MN for Trump, etc.) and the other candidate did win a lot of votes in every state.  Clinton was only 9 points behind Trump in Texas.  Trump won 30% of the vote in California.  Clinton did the same in Alabama.  Know that in every single state, the other candidate won a large portion of votes.  I do blame the DNC for Trump winning, because I understand that there are a number of Americas.  We are a very diverse nation, and that's a good thing, but the DNC has stopped listening to rural areas the same way Reagan and such stopped listening to urban areas.

I'm from Maine.  I live in a university town in Indiana.  My mom's a city gal.  I can hear those voices from everywhere, where I am, for the most part.  I'm very left leaning (Sanders is pretty centrist in my view, left enough on some issues, too left on some, not left enough on some).  But I hear the voices on the right, I hear the extremists on both sides, all angles.

Trump doesn't want government controlled wages.  So there's one thing he has you want.  He hates that idea because he likes underpaying his employees (again, he's sued almost constantly for failing to pay a contractor).  But government run healthcare?  His latest publicly stated healthcare plan for the US is a system where the government runs a competitive, under priced public insurance plan.  Not to mention Pence has been supportive of all the regulations and whatnot to make healthcare harder to get for people.  None of this is from why I think there needs to be government involved in wages and healthcare, that's a wholly different issue.  I believe we need government in there because otherwise our country will be worse, more expensive, and people will be worse off and history and data backs me up on those claims.  But again, just looking at what Trump wants done? On the campaign trail he said that he wants the government to make sure there aren't sick people in the streets.  You know how we do that now?  The ACA is a start, but it's still a lot of emergency room.  Where doctors are required to treat you.  And then if you can't pay it gets more expensive and the government has to pay anyways.  Otherwise no one gets healthcare, even the people who can pay.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: sirpercival on November 10, 2016, 11:00:29 AM
Ooh, ooh - Chemus, I want to ask you questions. I don't know enough conservative republicans (at least, enough who have the ability to communicate in ways other than memes and vague generalities) to be able to do so in a real way. I hope you don't mind.

So first, what are your views on climate change/environmental stuff and LGBTQ+ rights?

EDIT: also, what's your stance on abortion in the cases of rape, or incest, or severe medical problems for the mother?

I want to be clear that none of these are leading or loaded questions. I actually want to know the answers - I feel like I live in a liberal bubble where everyone mostly agrees with me.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Chemus on November 10, 2016, 02:51:06 PM
Ooh, ooh - Chemus, I want to ask you questions. I don't know enough conservative republicans (at least, enough who have the ability to communicate in ways other than memes and vague generalities) to be able to do so in a real way. I hope you don't mind.

So first, what are your views on climate change/environmental stuff and LGBTQ+ rights?

EDIT: also, what's your stance on abortion in the cases of rape, or incest, or severe medical problems for the mother?

I want to be clear that none of these are leading or loaded questions. I actually want to know the answers - I feel like I live in a liberal bubble where everyone mostly agrees with me.

Regarding climate change, I'm unconvinced that human endeavors are affecting it, let alone effecting it. I'm unconvinced as to the scale of the issue, and the fact that any time anyone dissents they're ridiculed rather than refuted does not convince me that it's being correctly characterized.

Regarding the celebration of non-heterosexual relationships, I say why? I don't care if they want to marry, but just like old people (re)marrying, I see no purpose in it. Neither is a breeder, so their marriage is meaningless to me. As for making non-het, or any other group, 'protected' against hate speech or hate crimes, or special employment rules I say fuck off. Equal protection under the law. No group should have special rules. Period.

In fact, grouping people is inherently divisive. Case in point: BLM. The fact that they're black doesn't matter. Their life does indeed matter, but not their skin. Statistics do not support the narrative that the BLM group has presented, but MSM tends to keep pushing their message. As Morgan Freeman (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3cGfrExozQ) said 'stop talking about it.'

Regarding abortion, my view is that I don't want my tax money paying for, or subsidizing, killing healthy babies that aren't a threat to their mother's life. Regarding rape and (coerced) incest, only consent needs to inform there. However the baby would become a victim too, in my view, if it were killed. Shortest answer: it's her body, but it's my money. Individuals can donate to, or invest in, say, Planned Parenthood, without forcing me to do so with public money.

We associate with those who agree with us, for one, and I personally feel that PC speech suppression has made it so that only one side is listened to. I have felt that it's 'social suicide' to speak out about how I feel. I'm going to try to ignore that feeling.


And dman, I don't care a whit about sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll. I feel that liberals try to use other peoples' money to get their desires accomplished. I've never said anything about their 'man cards'. If you want 'government programs' you pay for them; quit forcing me to. I only want public safety (police, fire, etc) and defense. I'd be fine with toll roads. And before government-run public assistance, there had been many private institutions for assistance. There still are.

I want what's in the constitution; any powers not mentioned in these articles is retained by the states. That's what I mean about reducing the size of government.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Nanshork on November 10, 2016, 03:13:14 PM
Chemus, do you realize how many rights are only granted to married couples?  Just take a look at the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States).  If you are for equal protection under the law, that includes the ability to marry.  Also, your argument makes no sense.  Do you see no purpose in someone who's infertile getting married?  Why is marriage intertwined with having children in your opinon?

I'm not going to touch any of the rest of your post, I'm worked up enough as it is.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on November 10, 2016, 03:14:48 PM
Regarding climate change, I'm unconvinced that human endeavors are affecting it, let alone effecting it. I'm unconvinced as to the scale of the issue, and the fact that any time anyone dissents they're ridiculed rather than refuted does not convince me that it's being correctly characterized.

Demonstrably, concentrations of CO2 are rising, and have been rising drastically, since the industrial revolution. There isn't some other plausible source to attribute the CO2 to, especially as burning oil produces water and Carbon Monoxide or Dioxide along with soot from incomplete combustion. There was also a dip around the time of Genghis Khan because forests got to grow back after killing so many people. From its physical properties and evidentially through looking at the surface of Venus, CO2 has an insulating effect. With more CO2 being put into the air and less removed via photosynthesis (deforestation for agriculture), concentrations go up.

The only way that humans can't be affecting temperature increases in some way is for comparatively simple physics knowledge to be wrong or for almost all measurements of atmospheric CO2 and historical levels to be incorrect. This includes direct measurements for the past 60 years, which would have been noticed by now.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on November 10, 2016, 03:31:33 PM
So you want me paying for your government assistance, but you don't want to pay for my government assistance?  I mean, everyone, including, and especially, those in poorer, rural areas are getting government assistance.  Farmers want crop subsidies.  How are those paid for?  Taxes on everyone.  Everyone eats.

But the whole hospital thing comes up.  I'll say now it is absolutely cheaper for the government, as it is now, to give everyone free insurance than it is for them to keep up with what the healthcare costs were prior to 2009.  But regardless.  Who pays for the hospital visit if the person visiting can't?  Right now, the government.  Would you rather have:

A) the government forces the hospital to pay for the person's care
B) the person to not receive care
C) the government to pay for that person's care
D) the person to be forced to take a loan or something to pay for the care
E) other (please specify)

As it is now (and has been for decades and decades) the hospital is required to see the person and prevent them from dying.  This prevents places from only accepting the wealthy, and overall improves QOF for everyone in the nation (everyone being the statistical majority).

The reason there aren't as many private businesses that provide the assistance is because A) they can't do it all and B) they were exploiting the poor and thus regulations had to be put into place as consumer protection.  There's still charities.  There's still things like churches and mosques to help out.  But for every one of those you have a...what's that place called in Texas?  And the one in Georgia?  You know, with Kreflo Dollar and Pastor what's his name.  The people who exploit people's harm to make money.

Quote
As for making non-het, or any other group, 'protected' against hate speech or hate crimes, or special employment rules I say fuck off. Equal protection under the law. No group should have special rules. Period.

And....that's the case now?  Ish.  I mean, right now local, state, and federal servants are trying to make it illegal to be gay.  Mike Pence is one of them.  Trump wanted to make it illegal to be Muslim.  Not sure where he stands on that fully.  Is that equal protection?  How on earth is that equal protection?  You said it was of no concern to you, great, sure, whatever.  So why are you not shouting about these people trying to make it illegal?  They are trying to make it unequal.  Rulings like the one that legalized same-sex marriage made it equal protection under the law.  They didn't give anyone special rights.  Personally, I think everyone should be protected from hate speech. And that's where liberals want to put things.

Quote
Regarding abortion, my view is that I don't want my tax money paying for, or subsidizing...

Good news then!  It never has.  Planned Parenthood's government money goes towards things like cancer screenings, checkups, etc, and law prohibits it from going towards abortion.

Here's a good counter argument to the climate change thing. (https://xkcd.com/1732/)  A chart of the history of the global average temperature over human history and a little beyond.  You should see why scientists are pretty alarmed by the rate that it's increased.



Okay, PC speech suppression.  This is not a thing.  PC speech is not calling someone a racial slur.  PC speech is not being racist/sexist/whateverist.  You can and absolutely should be allowed to voice your own concern, for you and your family(ies).  Anyone who is suppressing this, is not a PC police.  They are not PC, themselves.  However. Someone telling you to stop joking about rape because they have PTSD from being raped?  That's not PC police.  You are the one who is hurting someone with your words.  This is specifically not protected speech under the (original) First Amendment.  You are not allowed to use speech to harm someone, just as you are not allowed to use your fists.  The ol' 'shout fire in a crowded theater' routine.

BLM is trying to get police to stop shooting unarmed black men.  Like you know, that time when cops rolled up and shot a kid who wasn't bothering anyone, without even talking to him, and then drove off.  That's not being divisive.  That's dealing with a divide that already exists.  You think black activists were being divisive when they were asking for the ability to attend school?  Vote without undue burden of extra voting tests that white people didn't have to take?  Not be shot for existing?  While there are some BLM tangential people who are very much anti-white, they are few and far between.  Just like there are some white people who are anti-black (see: the KKK).  There are bad apples, but do not blame them for wanting to be equal under the law and in practice.  That's what movements like this are about.  Perhaps they are equal under the law.  But then why are they perpetually being targeted, with sentences that are very disparate from their white counterparts?  Why is it 10 years for crack, but a fine for cocaine?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 10, 2016, 06:16:33 PM
Trump and Obama met at the White House ; I don't remember anything like it before.
I'd presume Trump got told about the Truman-didn't-know-about-the-Nukes stuff.

Erdogan has said if Trump wins, he'll shut down the Incirlik air base
... where the USA front line action toward ISIS is, and nukes too.



... https://xkcd.com/1732/ (https://xkcd.com/1732/) ...

That guy is wryly funny, with the little quirks here and there.
1815 should have a full 1o temp drop from the Tambora Eruption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on November 10, 2016, 09:28:39 PM
Regarding climate change, I'm unconvinced that human endeavors are affecting it, let alone effecting it. I'm unconvinced as to the scale of the issue, and the fact that any time anyone dissents they're ridiculed rather than refuted does not convince me that it's being correctly characterized.

Thoughts? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04)

Quote
In fact, grouping people is inherently divisive. Case in point: BLM. The fact that they're black doesn't matter. Their life does indeed matter, but not their skin. Statistics do not support the narrative that the BLM group has presented, but MSM tends to keep pushing their message.

Could you clarify? What statistics?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Chemus on November 11, 2016, 12:52:21 AM
Do you see no purpose in someone who's infertile getting married?  Why is marriage intertwined with having children in your opinon?

To me marriage is to create a family. That includes progeny. Many, not all, of the benefits, rights, and responsibilities are, or were originally, to support children, via their mothers, if the fathers died or if the family split. Alimony in childless couples is definitely not compatible with sexual equality; each member of the former family is an adult and supposedly takes care of their self.

Demonstrably, concentrations of CO2 are rising, and have been rising drastically, since the industrial revolution. There isn't some other plausible source to attribute the CO2 to, especially as burning oil produces water and Carbon Monoxide or Dioxide along with soot from incomplete combustion. There was also a [temperature?] dip around the time of Genghis Khan because forests got to grow back after killing so many people. From its physical properties and evidentially through looking at the surface of Venus, CO2 has an insulating effect. With more CO2 being put into the air and less removed via photosynthesis (deforestation for agriculture), concentrations go up.

The only way that humans can't be affecting temperature increases in some way is for comparatively simple physics knowledge to be wrong or for almost all measurements of atmospheric CO2 and historical levels to be incorrect. This includes direct measurements for the past 60 years, which would have been noticed by now.

http://www.science20.com/frank_schnell/blog/the_greenhouse_effect_fallacy-165119 Sums up one scientific rebuttal.

So you want me paying for your government assistance, but you don't want to pay for my government assistance?  I mean, everyone, including, and especially, those in poorer, rural areas are getting government assistance.  Farmers want crop subsidies.  How are those paid for?  Taxes on everyone.  Everyone eats.

Police, Safety and Defense suffer from greater risk of corruption if not paid for universally; they must cover everyone equally without regard for whether you paid your bill. The rest, including subsidy is just adding money into the economic system without any responsibility or accounting, and merely serves to increase prices.

Quote
...Who pays for the hospital visit if the person visiting can't?  Right now, the government.  Would you rather have:

A) the government forces the hospital to pay for the person's care
B) the person to not receive care
C) the government to pay for that person's care
D) the person to be forced to take a loan or something to pay for the care
E) other (please specify)
The person chooses 'B' or 'D'. The person responsible for my health, and healthcare, is me. If you injure me, you get to pay, but otherwise, I'm responsible. 'A' just means that everyone who pays the hospital also pays for those who don't pay (the exact same as "taxing corporations"; their customers get to pay taxes twice). One reason Healthcare prices have inflated is because there's unaccountable money (the person with the benefits is not ultimately responsible) injected into the system (Same with tuition prices; grants, scholarships, et. al. merely serve to inflate prices for all). Right now, if a person goes to ER when it's not life threatening and can't pay, everyone else picks up the tab anyway.

Quote
As it is now (and has been for decades and decades) the hospital is required to see the person and prevent them from dying.  This prevents places from only accepting the wealthy, and overall improves QOF for everyone in the nation (everyone being the statistical majority).
I don't know the QOF acronym. But I'm a capitalist; I ain't rich at all, but 'pay your own way' is what I do for healthcare. If you can't, do your best to find a group or individual willing to help, or take a loan. Life. Ain't. Fair. We can't make it so with laws.

Quote
The reason there aren't as many private businesses that provide the assistance is because A) they can't do it all and B) they were exploiting the poor and thus regulations had to be put into place as consumer protection.  There's still charities.  There's still things like churches and mosques to help out.  But for every one of those you have a...what's that place called in Texas?  And the one in Georgia?  You know, with Kreflo Dollar and Pastor what's his name.  The people who exploit people's harm to make money.
I'm a heartless bastard who wants there to be a reason for anyone capable of working to have real incentive to work. Those actually unable to work are either supported by their families, or can seek assistance from a group willing to help them. Making 'poor folks' seek assistance rather than making it 'automatic' (I know that there's a buncha paperwork, but there is with a job too) gives incentive for those who just don't wanna work to do it anyway. And 50% is a bit pessimistic there, dman. You don't hear about anyone doing their job right in the news merely because it doesn't sell.

Quote
Quote
As for making non-het, or any other group, 'protected' against hate speech or hate crimes, or special employment rules I say fuck off. Equal protection under the law. No group should have special rules. Period.

And....that's the case now?  Ish.  I mean, right now local, state, and federal servants are trying to make it illegal to be gay...  Mike Pence is one of them.  Trump wanted to make it illegal to be Muslim.  Not sure where he stands on that fully.  Is that equal protection?  How on earth is that equal protection?  You said it was of no concern to you, great, sure, whatever.  So why are you not shouting about these people trying to make it illegal?  They are trying to make it unequal.  Rulings like the one that legalized same-sex marriage made it equal protection under the law.  They didn't give anyone special rights.  Personally, I think everyone should be protected from hate speech. And that's where liberals want to put things.
You don't get to tell me what I can't say. You can disagree with me. You can oppose my position. You can decry that my words make me sexist/racist/homophobic. You. Don't. Get. To. Shut. Me. Up.

Quote
Quote
Regarding abortion, my view is that I don't want my tax money paying for, or subsidizing...

Good news then!  It never has.  Planned Parenthood's government money goes towards things like cancer screenings, checkups, etc, and law prohibits it from going towards abortion.

Incorrect. My tax dollars subsidize abortion by covering those other things.

Quote
Here's a good counter argument to the climate change thing. (https://xkcd.com/1732/)  A chart of the history of the global average temperature over human history and a little beyond.  You should see why scientists are pretty alarmed by the rate that it's increased.
Yup. Seen that. But what about temps outside human history? Climate. Changes. We aren't gonna turn into Venus.
Quote

Okay, PC speech suppression.  This is not a thing.  PC speech is not calling someone a racial slur.  PC speech is not being racist/sexist/whateverist.  You can and absolutely should be allowed to voice your own concern, for you and your family(ies).  Anyone who is suppressing this, is not a PC police.  They are not PC, themselves.  However. Someone telling you to stop joking about rape because they have PTSD from being raped?  That's not PC police.  You are the one who is hurting someone with your words.  This is specifically not protected speech under the (original) First Amendment.  You are not allowed to use speech to harm someone, just as you are not allowed to use your fists.  The ol' 'shout fire in a crowded theater' routine.

These folks say you're incorrect. 1 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/) 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech) 3 (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-colleges-hate-speech-1st-amendment-20151030-story.html) 4 (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/may/07/chris-cuomo/cnns-chris-cuomo-first-amendment-doesnt-cover-hate/) (top 4, no skipping, on my "who is protected against hate speech?" search)

The closest is direct insult, likely to result in conflict; 'fighting words'. That's it. Even wikipedia shows that in the US, there's no 'hate speech' exclusion. But I can't call illegal immigrants by that name. I can't say that I want only those people who legally enter the US to be able to stay here, ever. I can't say I want people who come from countries, or religions, that hold large 'death to America' rallies in their streets to be slowed down and scrutinized harder before entering my country. That would make me racist, and being labeled racist is social suicide. Fine then, I'm racist.
Quote

BLM is trying to get police to stop shooting unarmed black men...

BLM is not trying to rein in any black-on-black killing. Why not? Here's a set of stats (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/12/15/guns-and-race-the-different-worlds-of-black-and-white-americans/).

Precis: An individual black man is twice as likely to die by gun than a white man. Unless they're each 20-29, then he's about 4.5 times as likely. The white kid most likely killed himself (77%), with a 19% chance it was homicide, and the black kid most likely got shot by someone else (82%), with a 14% chance of suicide. The white kid has about a 1% chance to have died due to 'legal intervention' (Police, et. al. I presume) instead of suicide or homicide, and the black kid a 2.5% chance (last chart, and stats from Wash Post link below).

Wash Post states (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/11/arent-more-white-people-than-black-people-killed-by-police-yes-but-no/) that 90% of violent black deaths are perpetrated by other black people, and 82% of whites offed are offed by whites.

It's bad statistics (I never took that), but 0.9 x 0.82 (the likelihood of 20-29 yr old death by gun homicide) is ~0.738. So if a black boy is killed by a gun it's an almost 74% likelihood that he was killed by another black person, 8% that a non-black did it, and another 14% chance that he did it himself, and 2.5% chance a cop did it, the rest being accidental or unexplained.

So I conclude that BLM doesn't care about lives, or else they'd start with the 'low hanging fruit' and teach black kids to stop killing each other before trying to narrow the disparity between deaths by police. I see it that at the leadership level they want something other than what they say they want. Most likely power of some sort.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on November 11, 2016, 02:02:14 AM
Um....dude....in that article itself, it admits that green house gases do indeed trap infrared radiation. It, quoting from the article you linked, says "it slows the release of infrared radiation to space".  That's trapping it.  Slowing it means it's here longer.  That's trapping it.  That's ignoring all the other, quite honestly, bunk claims and science in that article.  Another example is the moon being hot/cold compared to the earth.  The moon is actually quite cold.  Surface rocks can be very hot, but that's like saying your house is burning down because you touched a hot pan on the stove.  But even so, that's not even the point of climate change and global warming.  The point is that those buffers that your article talks about, the oceans especially, being those great heat sinks, are warming up.  The air is not a good heat sink.  The oceans are.  And I can actually go into the physics of why CO2 is a greenhouse gas (and why water and CO are as well) if you want, but it's kinda getting off topic and would take a while to go through.

Quote
Yup. Seen that. But what about temps outside human history? Climate. Changes. We aren't gonna turn into Venus.

No, we aren't going to turn into Venus.  But we are going to lose a lot of resources we have now, it'll be more expensive and difficult to live here, and it will be our fault.  What about temps outside human history?  I don't have a fancy graph, but are you not disturbed by that insanely fast uptick at the end?  In that chart, there's Krakatoa, there's the mini ice age caused by the invasion of Europeans in the Americas, there's the end of the ice age, and look at how small and slow those are compared to the end of that chart.  Look at how subtle all those changes are until the end.  Venus is closer to the sun and has a LOT more green house gases than we do.  It has a CO2 concentration of something like 96%, and then it has sulfuric acid in the air as well which is an even better insulator.  We have no acid (well, not as much since we implemented reforms to emissions), and our CO2 levels hover way below that, below 5%  It's something like 2% right now I think?  At no time in the Earth's history, aside from the very beginning when it was basically a ball of molten rock and meteors constantly, has the temperature average of the planet changed so rapidly.  Not even the comet that hit 65 Myrs ago.

Quote
The person chooses 'B' or 'D'. The person responsible for my health, and healthcare, is me. If you injure me, you get to pay, but otherwise, I'm responsible. 'A' just means that everyone who pays the hospital also pays for those who don't pay (the exact same as "taxing corporations"; their customers get to pay taxes twice). One reason Healthcare prices have inflated is because there's unaccountable money (the person with the benefits is not ultimately responsible) injected into the system (Same with tuition prices; grants, scholarships, et. al. merely serve to inflate prices for all). Right now, if a person goes to ER when it's not life threatening and can't pay, everyone else picks up the tab anyway.

So you are A) okay with hospitals not treating someone who can't prove they have the means of paying, and B) you are okay with them treating you and forcing them to pay regardless of their ability.  You are okay with the hospital doing a procedure, without consent, and forcing them to pay.  That's what option D is.

Option A is what we were doing because as a society we decided that we were obligated to help our fellow man.  The moral choice for a hospital was to treat everyone, and figure out payment later.  Because otherwise bad things happen (see: mob tactics).  Option C is what we are doing now, because the government was able to collect and provide a benefit to its citizens.  A safety net.  Obamacare attempted to move this one step further, letting the government provide insurance, which would have reduced prices for everyone, and it has spectacularly worked, given out medical climate.  Rates, even after the rate hike we're expecting next year, are far below what it was projected to be before the implementation of the law.

Do you believe that all consumer protection services should be canceled?  I'm honestly asking this.  Should companies and businesses be allowed to make whatever claims they want, any business practice they want, and just let them run wild?  That's the sort of stuff that we did in the 1800s and early 1900s.  Life was really, really bad back then, especially for the working class family.

Quote
You don't get to tell me what I can't say. You can disagree with me. You can oppose my position. You can decry that my words make me sexist/racist/homophobic. You. Don't. Get. To. Shut. Me. Up.

You're right.  But do not confuse this with the person listening's right to not listen to you, or to not think you're a monster, racist, sexist, unicorn, whatever they want to think you are.  They have that same right.  They have the right to be offended and treat you as an offender.  However, you do not have the right to hurt someone.  Again, no shouting fire in a crowded theater.  Just like no punching.  You mentioned the whole conflict thing, this is that conflict thing.  You can absolutely be charged with conspiracy for shouting hate speech because the law knows that it is not 'fully protected'.  They have to show that you intended to incite violence with it, but in some cases this is not hard to do.  Others it is hard to do. And regardless.  You having the right to say something awful, does not mean the other people have to listen to you or respect you or take you seriously or insult you back.  You do not get to tell them what to say, you do not get to shut them up.  It makes you stressed to be called a racist after you say something that insults someone?  You just freaking insulted someone!  And you are complaining about them complaining about it!  You are trying to say that they can't say back to you what you just said to them!

Finally, the BLM stuff.  Your original complaint with them was that they were hateful and such.  I mentioned their purpose and now you are saying that they're not focusing on the correct part of things.  But are they?  Why is the existence of 'black on black crime' preventing people from being outraged that the government is killing people based on race?  I mean, it's not true that that's happening, but some police officers have shot people because of their race.  That i a thing that has definitely happened over the past entirety of human civilization, but more pointedly the past couple years.  I won't pretend to know what it's like living as a black teen in today's America, but I can listen to what they're saying about their own experiences, and I encourage you to as well.  I don't feel I need to counter the points and arguments you made in this section, because I feel they're irrelevant and sidestepping the issue.  Regardless of the existence of other times of gun related deaths, it's still wrong that police kill unarmed civilians.  And BLM is not supporting those other gun violences either.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on November 11, 2016, 04:03:58 AM
I don't know enough to discuss all of that, but I hope you don't mind if I ask specific questions.


http://www.science20.com/frank_schnell/blog/the_greenhouse_effect_fallacy-165119 Sums up one scientific rebuttal.

If I may?

Quote
The so-called “Greenhouse effect” is one of the most persistent fallacies in popular science. It is a flawed speculation left over from the late 19th century, when it was first entertained by such scientific luminaries as Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, and Svante Arrhenius.

In fact, however, the so-called “greenhouse gases” do not “trap” infrared energy radiated from the surface of the Earth, as proposed; they merely slow its inevitable return to outer space.

We begin with a straw man. No one's' saying greenhouse gasses trap CO2 indefinitely. This (https://nsunews.nova.edu/global-warming-work/) the the first result on my Google search for "How does Global Warming work", and it compares global warming to adding insulation to a house - and no one thinks that traps heat indefinitely, right?

This  (http://www.howglobalwarmingworks.org/400-words.html)is the second result.

"Summary: (a) Earth absorbs most of the sunlight it receives; (b) Earth then emits the absorbed light’s energy as infrared light; (c) greenhouse gases absorb a lot of the infrared light before it can leave our atmosphere; (d) being absorbed slows the rate at which energy escapes to space; and (e) the slower passage of energy heats up the atmosphere, water, and ground. "

Quote
The result is a moderation of both daytime and nighttime temperatures, not a multiplying of the warming effect of the sun. In fact, the oft promoted specter of “tipping points” and “runaway greenhouse effects” represent nothing less than violations of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

What?

A runaway greenhouse effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect) describes a situation where a net positive feedback between surface temperature and atmospheric opacity increases the strength of the greenhouse effect on a planet until its oceans boil away. The IPCC says that this is unlikely to happen on Earth, but, and here's the thing, this has nothing to do with the first law of thermodynamics.

The first law of thermodynamics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics) states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.

The Earth is not a closed system. A "runaway greenhouse effect" would no more violate the laws of thermodynamics than the existence of the planet Venus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus#Atmosphere_and_climate). It's just that whatever equilibrium that we could reasonably reach on earth would not be hot enough to boil off the oceans.

Quote
Ironically, the conventionally described “greenhouse effect” (to the extent that it exists at all), would actually have a net cooling effect during the day, rather than a net warming effect, as invariably claimed. While excitedly promoting the absorption of ground-radiated IR by greenhouse gases, global warming enthusiasts ignore altogether the interception of incoming solar IR radiation by the same gases, which has been calculated to be several times greater than the absorption of ground-radiated IR.

This is far from my field of study, but there's no citation, so I'm not really sure how to check this off the top of my head. But given the author's understanding of scientific concepts so far...

Look, I don't want to dismiss this guy out of hand. And I wish I was knowledgeable enough to analyze his argument properly. But I know enough to spot one major logical fallacy and a fundamental misunderstanding of the first law of thermodynamics.

This is not a good thing.

Quote
Incorrect. My tax dollars subsidize abortion by covering those other things.

How? Are you saying that because money is fungible, that the less Planned Parenthood pays for cancer screenings, the more money it has for abortion?

I am not under the impression that that is how they operate (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/09/11/_money_is_fungible_at_planned_parenthood_not_actually_true.html), but I'm not that well read on the subject. Could you expand upon that point?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: sirpercival on November 11, 2016, 04:15:14 AM
I have more to say, but I feel like crap so this will be short. I also don't have the patience to quote specific posts.

Chemus: I only have one specific rebuttal of something that you said, because my purpose was not to try and convince you of anything. Re: temperatures outside human history, we KNOW them, by studying crystalline structures and ice composition in glaciers. We can track climate shifts over a much longer period of time than human history. (EDIT: here's an article about it https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/ )

Re: the other stuff, it's coming like your stance on things is that each person should take care of themselves. Do you consider yourself a libertarian? Because this all seems consistent with other libertarians I've talked to.

EDIT: I'm also not clear on your answer about abortion in the case of rape. I wasn't talking about Planned Parenthood, or funding. Is your stance that in cases of rape, abortion is the woman's choice? Or are you still against it?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Chemus on November 11, 2016, 05:23:55 AM
Sirp:

Yeah, I agree with lots of Libertarians, but there's never anyone good on. Republican mostly fits though.

Regarding abortions for rape etc., I said that (lack of) consent informs my feelings, but that if the kid is killed, it becomes a victim too, in my opinion. I never said that a woman can't choose, but that there are other choices, and I don't want to pay for abortions, as I feel that they're tantamount to infanticide.

Regarding Climate change (if that's still the name), I don't trust the reporting on it, as it's been 3-4 things in the 30 years I've been hearing about it. The world's real problem is population. Unless we can stabilize it, nothing we try to fix will stay fixed. But that's racist talk because right now the most populous areas, and the fast growing ones aren't white. Thus we can't discuss anything that might work, regardless of its palatability.

And dman, I never said BLM is hateful, I said that grouping by race, religion, etc is divisive. I even linked M. Freeman saying that not talking about race is the way to stop racism. And those stats about how many kids are getting killed by people who aren't police are more important than the number getting killed by police, because of the great difference. Pick the low hanging fruit first; deal with the largest issues before the smaller ones. And yes I mean that I care more about 20,000 kids dying to violence than about 700 kids dying to (possibly) violent cops. That's why I think that BLM is a power grab.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: ketaro on November 11, 2016, 05:43:23 AM
Edit: I changed my mind, I don't want to get into this. -_-'
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: sirpercival on November 11, 2016, 08:14:51 AM
OK Chemus, thanks for answering. I don't agree with you even a little bit, but I appreciate you answering.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Necrosnoop110 on November 11, 2016, 08:16:29 AM
The world's real problem is population. Unless we can stabilize it, nothing we try to fix will stay fixed. But that's racist talk because right now the most populous areas, and the fast growing ones aren't white. Thus we can't discuss anything that might work, regardless of its palatability.
The total numbers are rising but the rate is actually going down.
The Overpopulation Myth
https://youtu.be/eA5BM7CE5-8

Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on November 11, 2016, 10:26:29 AM
Regarding abortions for rape etc., I said that (lack of) consent informs my feelings, but that if the kid is killed, it becomes a victim too, in my opinion. I never said that a woman can't choose, but that there are other choices, and I don't want to pay for abortions, as I feel that they're tantamount to infanticide.

I get you. I don't want to pay for illegal wars.

Perhaps I should pull a Thoreau?

Quote
Regarding Climate change (if that's still the name), I don't trust the reporting on it, as it's been 3-4 things in the 30 years I've been hearing about it.

If that is the problem, then I believe that I can help you out. Let us skip the middleman. (https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/)

 
Quote
The world's real problem is population. Unless we can stabilize it, nothing we try to fix will stay fixed. But that's racist talk because right now the most populous areas, and the fast growing ones aren't white. Thus we can't discuss anything that might work, regardless of its palatability.

Birth rates level off as a country gets more prosperous and free. So we just need to make everyone better off. Which is the point of liberal economics in the first place, according to Adam Smith.

Quote
And yes I mean that I care more about 20,000 kids dying to violence than about 700 kids dying to (possibly) violent cops. That's why I think that BLM is a power grab.
That may be, but it is very important that the system be fair, responsible, and accountable.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: altpersona on November 11, 2016, 10:38:54 AM
OK Chemus, thanks for answering. I don't agree with you even a little bit, but I appreciate you answering.

this
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Nanshork on November 11, 2016, 10:45:14 AM
I'm with ketaro, I can't engage anymore except to finish what I started. 

Chemus, just fyi, enforcing your definition of marriage on other people is a shitty thing to do, especially when marriage is just a legal construct and has nothing to do with religion or anything else.  That's not equal rights for everyone which you stated that you want in the first place.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on November 11, 2016, 11:42:26 AM
Quote
Quote
As it is now (and has been for decades and decades) the hospital is required to see the person and prevent them from dying.  This prevents places from only accepting the wealthy, and overall improves QOF for everyone in the nation (everyone being the statistical majority).
I don't know the QOF acronym. But I'm a capitalist; I ain't rich at all, but 'pay your own way' is what I do for healthcare. If you can't, do your best to find a group or individual willing to help, or take a loan. Life. Ain't. Fair. We can't make it so with laws.

It can be made more fair than it is. If you don't have much in the first place, you're losing more just from being hospitalised and unable to work in the first place. Compounding that with long-term unaffordable costs and all the threats that come with missing payments or refusing to pay? You can use laws to stop people being doubly punished for sheer bad luck. And if whatever got you hospitalised costs you your job and you don't have a chance of doing that? What then? Give up and die an entirely preventable death because of random circumstance? Things might not be perfect, but you can at least restrict the chances of these things happening.

There's no way that charities could manage to keep up with it. Doubly so for those that would lose government funding. And nobody's going to naively assume that if taxes weren't directed towards social safety nets, people will donate more.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Chemus on November 11, 2016, 12:31:59 PM
Nanshork, I never said 'I don't want them to marry', I said:
Quote
Regarding the celebration of non-heterosexual relationships, I say why? I don't care if they want to marry, but just like old people (re)marrying, I see no purpose in it...
and
Quote
Many, not all, of the benefits, rights, and responsibilities are, or were originally, to support children, via their mothers, if the fathers died or if the family split...
(emphasis added)
When SirP asked. SirP also asked about climate change, I didn't volunteer. These are not reasons why I usually support (R) candidates.

I vote for the folks who I think might reduce the power of government, especially the Federal government. Could I be wrong as to who they are, and as to the benefit of that? Hell yes.

Solo, if BLM wanted to hold police accountable, and if MSM did, they'd not focus on the fact that ~150 black men died by being shot by police this year, but that 450+ people died that way. MSM only releases info locally when someone not black gets shot, and in the AP stories I've read, if a person who is black commits a crime with a gun, no race is given or it's buried in the story, but the reverse happens with whites. I think that they want something else.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Nanshork on November 11, 2016, 12:34:17 PM
Yeah, I'm done.  If you don't see the problem I'm not interested in getting into it anymore.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on November 11, 2016, 02:06:13 PM
Nanshork, I never said 'I don't want them to marry', I said:
Quote
Regarding the celebration of non-heterosexual relationships, I say why? I don't care if they want to marry, but just like old people (re)marrying, I see no purpose in it...
and
Quote
Many, not all, of the benefits, rights, and responsibilities are, or were originally, to support children, via their mothers, if the fathers died or if the family split...
(emphasis added)

How next of kin works, visitation rights of all forms, restrictions on wills, inheritance otherwise, details about financial accounts, what happens when raising children and they split, who can adopt...

It's a case of "rewrite every law and rule across state lines to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexuality where relationships are involved" or "let people marry regardless of sexuality and therefore solve the problem in one go". Same reason old people can benefit from marriage.

It doesn't matter if you agree with the laws in place, surely you can see why there's more to it than simply having children?

Quote
Solo, if BLM wanted to hold police accountable, and if MSM did, they'd not focus on the fact that ~150 black men died by being shot by police this year, but that 450+ people died that way. MSM only releases info locally when someone not black gets shot, and in the AP stories I've read, if a person who is black commits a crime with a gun, no race is given or it's buried in the story, but the reverse happens with whites. I think that they want something else.

If 1/3 of the population was black, that would be expected. Since it's not, there's an issue somewhere.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: phaedrusxy on November 11, 2016, 04:01:16 PM
Do you see no purpose in someone who's infertile getting married?  Why is marriage intertwined with having children in your opinon?

To me marriage is to create a family. That includes progeny. Many, not all, of the benefits, rights, and responsibilities are, or were originally, to support children, via their mothers, if the fathers died or if the family split. Alimony in childless couples is definitely not compatible with sexual equality; each member of the former family is an adult and supposedly takes care of their self.
But it is about a lot more than that legally, in the US, and this not a matter of opinion. Being married opens up a lot of very beneficial doors which include being able to be on your spouse's insurance plan, hospital visitation rights, joint tax returns, end-of-life decision making, inheritance taxes, etc. Not allowing homosexuals to marry is denying them equal protection and rights under the law.

And allowing them to marry has absolutely no negative impact on anyone. So it's a no brainer. I don't know how anyone arguing against this has a legal or moral leg to stand on.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 11, 2016, 04:24:02 PM
Chemus --- as a late aside, at a detail from 2 pages back ...
some the most stringent criticism of Trump came from explicitly
Christian backgrounds.  Romney was a leader of the Not Trumps
and couched it in mostly Biblical language.  And the Liberty U
student body voted against Jerry Falwell Jr 's endorsement.
The margin was quite huge, 90 for out of a 15000 campus.
They couched their opposition in only  Christian language.

**

I noticed this ---> http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/%E2%80%98prediction-professor%E2%80%99-who-called-trump%E2%80%99s-big-win-also-made-another-forecast-trump-will-be-impeached/ar-AAkbsjd?li=BBnb7Kz
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on November 11, 2016, 10:40:41 PM
Well, Trump erased the muslim ban and leaving the Paric Climate treaty from his website, and he publicly walked back complete repeal of Obamacare insisting there are parts that need to be kept.

My conservative friends are now howling for his blood on FB.  He literally went from being the second coming of jesus to the devil within an hour.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on November 11, 2016, 10:44:04 PM
Well, Trump erased the muslim ban and leaving the Paric Climate treaty from his website, and he publicly walked back complete repeal of Obamacare insisting there are parts that need to be kept.

My conservative friends are now howling for his blood on FB.  He literally went from being the second coming of jesus to the devil within an hour.

He supported the democrats for years, was never in politics to establish a record, and contradicted himself every other week during the campaigns and this surprised them?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on November 11, 2016, 10:46:55 PM
yup
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on November 11, 2016, 10:49:44 PM
Full points for having the foresight of a mayfly to them, then.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Chemus on November 11, 2016, 11:26:11 PM
...as a late aside, at a detail from 2 pages back ...
some the most stringent criticism of Trump came from explicitly
Christian backgrounds...

So? That just means that perhaps my party is moving away from being the 'religious right' to being right-wing. Again, I'm not religious.

Nanshork, Pxy, I'm not arguing against gay marriage. I don't care about gay marriage either way, being neither gay, pro-gay nor anti-gay. Yes marriage has crap tied to it that have to do with tying people together as a family. My view of marriage is as a commitment whose purpose is to make solid families for kids to be socialized and educated in. So the point of non-breeding marriage is lost on me. And as I said before, the money stuff is anachronistic if men and women, indeed all adults, are equal; they were there so the woman, and any kids, could retain some income after the bread-winner left/died. Only in the case of kids being included do they have any modern relevance.

Ranieh, that supposes that the reason that more kids who are black are getting shot because the cops are racist or afraid of them. With roughly half of incarcerated violent offenders being people who're black, perhaps the kids are just encountering the police that much more often, thus increasing their risk. What I mean is that presuming a person being stopped by police has a certain percentage chance to get shot, if some people encounter police more frequently, their risk increases. This argument presumes that the majority of incarcerated people are indeed guilty of the crime they're in for.

Regarding Trump's flips, if this is correct then I'm disappointed, but unsurprised. Time will tell what actually transpires. I recall a few campaign promises of other presidents. Not a lot of follow through there either.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on November 11, 2016, 11:40:09 PM
Nanshork, Pxy, I'm not arguing against gay marriage. I don't care about gay marriage either way, being neither gay, pro-gay nor anti-gay. Yes marriage has crap tied to it that have to do with tying people together as a family. My view of marriage is as a commitment whose purpose is to make solid families for kids to be socialized and educated in. So the point of non-breeding marriage is lost on me. And as I said before, the money stuff is anachronistic if men and women, indeed all adults, are equal; they were there so the woman, and any kids, could retain some income after the bread-winner left/died. Only in the case of kids being included do they have any modern relevance.

Then you're saying "I don't get it" because you're applying your idea of what marriage is (and why that necessarily requires fertile men and women to exist is another question--science hasn't stopped, nor has any form of adoption or parental death) to what it actually works as. It makes perfect sense when viewed through a lens of what is.

Honestly, your view of marriage seems pretty vacuous. I can't think of any point in recorded history marriage has been that simplisic.

Quote
Ranieh, that supposes that the reason that more kids who are black are getting shot because the cops are racist or afraid of them. With roughly half of incarcerated violent offenders being people who're black, perhaps the kids are just encountering the police that much more often, thus increasing their risk. What I mean is that presuming a person being stopped by police has a certain percentage chance to get shot, if some people encounter police more frequently, their risk increases. This argument presumes that the majority of incarcerated people are indeed guilty of the crime they're in for.

If 1/3 of the people shot by police don't comprise 1/3 of the population, something, somewhere has gone wrong. That's all I said. However, the black population is some... 13%? So that needs ~1/10 of the population to be providing ~1/3 of people being shot by police assuming perfectly equal treatment. There's a lot of places this analysis suggests problems, in every stage.

BLM definitely has some complete idiots (I recall one person deciding to walk into the road... at night... dressed all in black...) within it, though.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: FireInTheSky on November 11, 2016, 11:44:06 PM
So the point of non-breeding marriage is lost on me.

I'm curious how this squares with the idea that one of the abortion alternatives for women is adoption? Surely having additional stable, solid couples with all the protections and benefits of state-recognized marriage would increase the pool of homes available for adoptions, especially since, as you said, such additional marriages are "non-breeding." (Side note: not totally sure what you mean by "non-breeding," since with modern (http://ijr.com/2015/02/244570-three-parent-babies-one-step-closer-to-reality-new-law/?_ga=1.65671150.1729490121.1478925489) medical (http://ijr.com/2015/03/274949-science-working-toward-two-mom-two-dad-biological-babies/) technology (https://www.wired.com/2015/02/baby-two-mommies-daddy-cool/), same-sex couples potentially can produce their own offspring.)

EDIT: Ninja'd by Raineh
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Chemus on November 11, 2016, 11:53:26 PM
The point of the 'I don't care about gay marriage' is that I'm fine with it, but working toward or against it does not impact my voting in any way.

And the rest of my view of marriage is indeed rather simplistic. Adoption exists, sure, but then children are in the pic. And more power to 'em as far as science makin' more babies.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on November 12, 2016, 12:02:07 AM
You really have a viewpoint I can't understand.  I don't understand treating government power as anything other than a means to some end, at all. What's the point in caring about the philosophy of governance over the outcomes of it?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on November 12, 2016, 01:28:17 AM
Well, Trump erased the muslim ban and leaving the Paric Climate treaty from his website, and he publicly walked back complete repeal of Obamacare insisting there are parts that need to be kept.

My conservative friends are now howling for his blood on FB.  He literally went from being the second coming of jesus to the devil within an hour.

We are at war with Trump. We have always been at war with Trump.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: linklord231 on November 12, 2016, 02:03:26 AM
Well, Trump erased the muslim ban and leaving the Paric Climate treaty from his website, and he publicly walked back complete repeal of Obamacare insisting there are parts that need to be kept.

So he's walking back his more extreme ideas and becoming more moderate?  It's almost like he isn't literally Hitler after all.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on November 12, 2016, 02:06:41 AM
Well, Trump erased the muslim ban and leaving the Paric Climate treaty from his website, and he publicly walked back complete repeal of Obamacare insisting there are parts that need to be kept.

So he's walking back his more extreme ideas and becoming more moderate?  It's almost like he isn't literally Hitler after all.

Hitler had more charisma and believed what he said, that's true.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on November 12, 2016, 09:43:30 AM
Chemus.  Do you believe that government should be allowed to prevent people from marrying, in a religious, civil sense? As in, do you believe government should prevent a business or church from doing the ceremony, with no legal ramifications and should be allowed to prevent people from saying that they are married? Ignoring all the benefits that couples get, just, should government be allowed to tell people what they call themselves with regards to marriage?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Chemus on November 12, 2016, 10:53:14 AM
No dman, especially stripped of the legal ramifications, I don't think government should be involved in marriage. It's not a large issue of mine though.

And Ranieh, government power, indeed anyone's power, is a means to 'any' end. The more power someone has, the more options they have. I don't trust in the benevolence of government (politicians and bureaucrats) to exercise those options, so I want the power reduced. The powers of the government are increasing (ACA, unopposed executive orders, etc) and that scares me.

And you appear to have ignored the paragraph you quoted. Population is not necessarily the only factor; increased interaction, esp. negative interaction, with police == greater risk. And correlation != causation; skin color or conviction rates may not play a role. There's no work for dialogue by BLM; skin color is the only important factor I hear from them.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on November 12, 2016, 11:17:23 AM
Very well.  Are you aware that what I said above was what the law was?  And that is what Mike Pence wants it to be?  They want government to be involved in the marriage and relationships of people, preventing them from being in a relationship with someone of their own gender.  I understand it is not a large issue with you, but can you understand how it can be a large issue for someone else?  Particularly someone who is gay or has gay loved ones?

EDIT: Also, this is something I don't think a lot of conservatives get.  As a liberal, my view about government is that it exists solely to be a protector and benefactor of the people.  Very, very similar to what you said you view as the role of government.  Our differences lay with how best to go about this.  I understand how government providing healthcare can benefit its citizens more than simply not instituting laws about healthcare can.  Using this example, the government regulates the industry simply to protect its citizens.  And because this regulation does(n't) increase cost, a subsidy for the people would benefit them (the regulations actually don't increase cost.  That is a fallacy.  The regulations actually have reduced cost, because without regulations we could and in fact have in the past had cartels and monopolies which artificially raised prices on things). So it's still under the 'protection' mission that these things come about.  Same thing with the social safety nets, like Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare.  Those are protecting the citizens.  Things like police and fire obviously protect.  Military too.  But so does the mass transit systems that a lot of cities have produced (more efficiently in other places like Europe, but still in the US).  Those things protect because it makes lives easier for the people using them, making it easier for organizations like police to move about (if there are fewer cars, that means it's easier to drive).  Even such frivolities like public parks protect.  They protect the mind, making people happier, and making it so QOL is better.  But the more important aspect of things that improve quality of life are that they generate revenue.  A happier populous is a more productive populous.  A more educated populous (free/subsidized education) is a more productive populous.  This generates the excess revenue used to fund those other, more concrete protection thing.  If it wasn't for our public education system, we would not be as successful of a country as we are now.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on November 12, 2016, 12:51:07 PM
Quote
As a liberal, my view about government is that it exists solely to be a protector and benefactor of the people.

The state is a violent machine.
 (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/)

The proletariat must seize the means of production and do away with the state. ¡Viva la Revolución!
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on November 12, 2016, 12:56:49 PM
No dman, especially stripped of the legal ramifications, I don't think government should be involved in marriage. It's not a large issue of mine though.

And Ranieh, government power, indeed anyone's power, is a means to 'any' end. The more power someone has, the more options they have. I don't trust in the benevolence of government (politicians and bureaucrats) to exercise those options, so I want the power reduced. The powers of the government are increasing (ACA, unopposed executive orders, etc) and that scares me.

And I trust in the restrictions and oversight that politicians have to operate under far more than market freedom. Businesses exist to make money and without something to enforce regulations, that's never good for the people working there. And ethical businesses tend not to have the same wealth as vast industrial conglomerates. At least the government itself doesn't operate on a purely monetary motive and can therefore choose to do things because it could help people.

I'm in complete opposition to the "government has no place in healthcare" idea, for one. It's business that I don't see having a place in operating such things. Same as with the police, or fire services. It's profiteering entirely off of saving lives and that's disturbing. It's something that anyone could need, and even more likely than the other two, and which everybody in society benefits from.

Privatised prisons are nearly as creepy.

Quote
And you appear to have ignored the paragraph you quoted. Population is not necessarily the only factor; increased interaction, esp. negative interaction, with police == greater risk. And correlation != causation; skin color or conviction rates may not play a role. There's no work for dialogue by BLM; skin color is the only important factor I hear from them.

'Random' searches (when legal) disproportionately target black men despite the chance that there is, in fact, something illegal still hovering on the level of 'not at all'. When police unintentionally focus on one group more than justified, that's going to yield an increased chance of getting killed.

Then there's the bizarre drug sentencing mentioned before.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: oslecamo on November 12, 2016, 01:06:02 PM
Quote
The world's real problem is population. Unless we can stabilize it, nothing we try to fix will stay fixed. But that's racist talk because right now the most populous areas, and the fast growing ones aren't white. Thus we can't discuss anything that might work, regardless of its palatability.

Birth rates level off as a country gets more prosperous and free. So we just need to make everyone better off. Which is the point of liberal economics in the first place, according to Adam Smith.

Except that if everybody suddenly started making as much trash as the populations in the USA and Europe, things will get pretty ugly pretty fast.

Heck, there's already a big pollution problem in China with all the factories and new cars around. And that's after the one-child policy bringing the birth rate down.

Last but not least there's certainly not enough energy for everybody to have first world living standards right now even if the companies didn't charge anything for it.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on November 12, 2016, 01:10:25 PM
Quote
The world's real problem is population. Unless we can stabilize it, nothing we try to fix will stay fixed. But that's racist talk because right now the most populous areas, and the fast growing ones aren't white. Thus we can't discuss anything that might work, regardless of its palatability.

Birth rates level off as a country gets more prosperous and free. So we just need to make everyone better off. Which is the point of liberal economics in the first place, according to Adam Smith.

Except that if everybody suddenly started making as much trash as the populations in the USA and Europe, things will get pretty ugly pretty fast.

Heck, there's already a big pollution problem in China with all the factories and new cars around. And that's after the one-child policy bringing the birth rate down.

Last but not least there's certainly not enough energy for everybody to have first world living standards right now even if the companies didn't charge anything for it.

I will prepare the gulags.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on November 12, 2016, 07:43:03 PM
Quote
The world's real problem is population. Unless we can stabilize it, nothing we try to fix will stay fixed. But that's racist talk because right now the most populous areas, and the fast growing ones aren't white. Thus we can't discuss anything that might work, regardless of its palatability.

Birth rates level off as a country gets more prosperous and free. So we just need to make everyone better off. Which is the point of liberal economics in the first place, according to Adam Smith.

Except that if everybody suddenly started making as much trash as the populations in the USA and Europe, things will get pretty ugly pretty fast.

Heck, there's already a big pollution problem in China with all the factories and new cars around. And that's after the one-child policy bringing the birth rate down.

Last but not least there's certainly not enough energy for everybody to have first world living standards right now even if the companies didn't charge anything for it.

Waa waa waa things aren't perfect yet :P  China's problem stems more from the government policies and whatnot than population gross.Sure the population has an effect on it, but the lack of clean air standards there really hurts things.  Same with India.  India still burns poop for warmth in a lot of places.  Certain places in Europe have very high factory production but much less pollution.  Same with the US, but we aren't as good about pollution as Europe is.  The EU anyways.  As for energy needs....can I introduce you to my friend, fusion and fission power?

And Chemus, that whole drug sentencing thing is probably the biggest indicator of racism in the police force.  Not the biggest, the most apparent.  Crack cocaine carries a long jail sentence for possession.  Powder cocaine carries, I believe, a fine, and probation.  They are both the same thing, but in different forms, a large(r) crystal vs a powder.  One is used more heavily by urban blacks, the other by wealthy whites.  The sentences were decided on long after those were the stereotypes associated with those particular drugs.  And the urban blacks got hit with the much larger punishment for the same offence.  And then of course there's stop and frisk, the fact that a black male is more likely to go to jail than a white male for the same offence and for doing literally nothing, just being held, etc. etc.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Chemus on November 12, 2016, 11:37:35 PM
I brought up BLM because of it's inherent divisiveness. If they're really for fixing policing, they need a better slogan.

And I didn't say 50% 'incarceration rates' but 'incarceration for violent offenses'. I wasn't speaking about non-violent crime at all.

Here are the top 4 hits that a search of 'percentage of violent crime by race' got me. They're from American Renaissance (http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/), PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/02/sally-kohn/sally-kohn-white-men-69-percent-arrested-violent/), Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States), and InfoWars (http://www.infowars.com/black-crime-facts-that-the-white-liberal-media-darent-talk-about/).

To varying degrees, all four articles show greater violence per-capita of the male black population. Presuming that that data is correct, then the kids who're black are likelier to encounter police because they're likelier to be reported for violence, and thus their risk of being shot by police increases.

Interestingly, I noticed in passing the hate crimes section in the Wikipedia Article. Whites and hispanics are lumped together and perpetrate, or are reported for, a smaller percentage of hate crimes than even the 62% white percentage of the population alone (and the data presented includes hispanic hate crimes too), at 58%. And reports of black hate crimes account for 18%, greater than their 13% population. White folks're racist.

BLM needs a better name, and a better message.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on November 12, 2016, 11:51:18 PM
The entire point of a name like that is to draw attention to a problem. Of course it's not a perfectly accurate statement of reality; same for clickbait, sensationalist headlines, research articles with alluring names and less interesting abstracts...

That's picking holes.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on November 13, 2016, 12:47:09 AM
Chemus, what are your thoughts on [urlhttps://www.google.com/amp/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.amp.html%3F0p19G%3De]the study of police treatment of minorities[/url] conducted by Dr. Fryer which tries to correct for different variables to determine how minorities are treated compared to whites?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on November 13, 2016, 12:51:59 AM
Broken link
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on November 13, 2016, 01:08:53 AM
Thanks. Fixed.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Chemus on November 13, 2016, 02:15:21 AM
That it contradicts the main BLM narrative of cops shooting first more against blacks, and is at least looking at more types of data. BLM by its nature is, or appears to be, intentionally divisive, producing 'us vs. them', when I don't believe that there actually is an 'us' or a 'them'.

The articles I linked, plus at least one other suggest that perhaps the police are responding to resistance. The public narrative regarding police is that they are the antagonists, that they target blacks for crimes and mistreatment.

However, in the AmRen article, the data provided suggested that in the vast majority of reported violent interactions between blacks and other races, the offender was determined to be black; more than 80% of the time in the each case of white and hispanic violent interactions. I can't believe that the justice system, which already has significant scrutiny, is wrong more than 60% of the time. So, there's more than one side to this.

It's my opinion that youths and others who're black are effectively 'trained' to be mad at white people and police. That 'divide and conquer' is being used against us all.

(ps, link's still broken)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on November 13, 2016, 02:24:31 AM
Here is the study (http://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/publications/empirical-analysis-racial-differences-police-use-force)

Here is an NYT article on it, if you don't want to deal with the original paper. (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0)

My reading of the actual study leaves me with the understanding that while police are less likely to shoot blacks, they are more likely to use force for the purpose of compliance compared to whites, controlling for other variables. So the main problem is how police treat minorities routinely, as opposed to the relatively rare situations where a shooting occurs.

Study has limitations since not all police departments compile or release data, but this does indicate that there may be a real disparity in the use of force in the most common forms of police encounters.

I link this to you because, like with the global warming discussion earlier, you are the kind of person who makes fact based decisions. But, and please do not take this the wrong way, you don't have the time to investigate some issues deeply. The article debunking global warming, for instance, had massive flaws in the first section that are not apparent on casual inspection. So to with the issue of police use of force.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 14, 2016, 04:57:08 PM
google search for Solo's article ... it looks like nytimes is pushing subscriptions extra hard right now :
https://www.google.com/search?q=surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

(lots of chatter on it outside of nytimes)



Check out this map of Counties that voted for Obama and switched to Trump :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-voters-who-heavily-supported-obama-switched-over-to-trump/2016/11/10/65019658-a77a-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html

Wow.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 17, 2016, 06:13:42 PM
Military polls were way off, of the general populace (scroll down a bit).
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/second-military-times-ivmf-poll-results
 :plot

Looks like the Officer corp heard Trump on McCain, loud and clear.
Johnson by +20% , is a very strong outlier , perhaps by more than
even the McMullin vote in Utah.
Those ballots are still being counted, along with other absentee votes.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Chemus on November 17, 2016, 10:47:30 PM
This, however, is a poll. How did they vote? Additionally, unless you're comparing Enlisted to Officers, the spread in the poll of officers was listed as T: 26.2%, J: 31.3%, C: 31.7%, Clinton edging out Johnson. Enlisted strongly favored Trump, and disfavored Clinton. Perhaps they heard Bengazi loud and clear; 'what difference does it make now?'
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on November 17, 2016, 10:53:07 PM
Perhaps they heard Bengazi loud and clear; 'what difference does it make now?'

I'm sorry: what are you referencing?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Chemus on November 17, 2016, 11:00:35 PM
Hillary Clinton, when being questioned on the Bengazi incident, Clinton said "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans? At this point, what difference does it make?"
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on November 17, 2016, 11:05:52 PM
In context, do you refer to this (https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4329984/clinton-blows-gop-senator-benghazi-hearing)?

Quote
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Secretary. I'd like to join my colleagues in thanking you for your service sincerely, and also appreciate the fact that you’re here testifying and glad that you’re looking in good health.

Clinton: Thank you.

Johnson: Were you fully aware in real time -- and again, I realize how big your job is and everything is erupting in the Middle East at this time -- were you fully aware of these 20 incidents that were reported in the ARB[State Department Accountability Review Board] in real time?

Clinton: I was aware of the ones that were brought to my attention. They were part of our ongoing discussion about the deteriorating threat environment in eastern Libya. We certainly were very conscious of them. I was assured by our security professionals that repairs were under way, additional security upgrades had taken place.

Johnson: Thank you. Did you see personally the cable on -- I believe it was August 12th -- specifically asking for, basically, reinforcements for the security detail that was going to be evacuating or leaving in August? Did you see that personally?

Clinton: No, sir.

Johnson: OK. When you read the ARB, it strikes me as how certain the people were that the attacks started at 9:40 Benghazi time. When was the first time you spoke to -- or have you ever spoken to -- the returnees, the evacuees? Did you personally speak to those folks?

Clinton: I‘ve spoken to one of them, but I waited until after the ARB had done its investigation because I did not want there to be anybody raising any issue that I had spoken to anyone before the ARB conducted its investigation.

Johnson: How many people were evacuated from Libya?

Clinton: Well, the numbers are a little bit hard to pin down because of our other friends --

Johnson: Approximately?

Clinton: Approximately, 25 to 30.

Johnson: Did anybody in the State Department talk to those folks very shortly afterwards?

Clinton: There was discussion going on afterwards, but once the investigation started, the FBI spoke to them before we spoke to them, and so other than our people in Tripoli -- which, I think you’re talking about Washington, right?

Johnson: The point I’m making is, a very simple phone call to these individuals, I think, would’ve ascertained immediately that there was no protest prior to this. This attack started at 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time and it was an assault. I appreciate the fact that you called it an assault. But I’m going back to then-Ambassador [Susan] Rice five days later going on the Sunday shows and, what I would say, is purposefully misleading the American public. Why wasn’t that known? And again, I appreciate the fact that the transparency of this hearing, but why weren’t we transparent to that point in time?

Clinton: Well, first of all, Senator, I would say that once the assault happened, and once we got our people rescued and out, our most immediate concern was, number one, taking care of their injuries. As I said, I still have a DS [Diplomatic Security] agent at Walter Reed seriously injured -- getting them into Frankfurt, Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over immediately to start talking to them. We did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews. And we did not -- I think this is accurate, sir -- I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC [Intelligence Community] talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows. And you know I just want to say that people have accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of misleading Americans. I can say trying to be in the middle of this and understanding what was going on, nothing could be further from the truth. Was information developing? Was the situation fluid? Would we reach conclusions later that weren’t reached initially? And I appreciate the --

Johnson: But, Madame Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained?

Clinton: But, Senator, again—

Johnson: Within hours, if not days?

Clinton: Senator, you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one—

Johnson: I realize that’s a good excuse.

Clinton: Well, no, it’s the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown --

Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

Johnson: OK. Thank you, Madame Secretary.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Chemus on November 18, 2016, 11:20:17 AM
Yes, that's what I referred to (even though I misspelled Benghazi)

Clinton or her State Dept. rejected a request to replace a security detail that left a month prior to the attack (which she says she was unaware of), even though there had been 20 incidents reported (which she says she was partially aware of). She didn't talk to anyone who was evacuated, citing a desire not to taint the investigation, yet she, her ambassador, and Obama claimed at the time that Intel showed that it was specifically a protest over a video, prior to a completed investigation. There were no such protests, yet they destroyed the filmmaker sans evidence. When pressed repeatedly about not talking to any survivors from the embassy, and the fact that had she done so, she could not have made her claim, she said she didn't want to bother them, that the FBI was investigating, and what does the attackers motive matter now?

She claims that she was unaware; either she was not doing her job, or she was lying.

Were you really unaware of this exchange before now, Solo?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on November 18, 2016, 09:06:59 PM
As unaware of it as you were of that global warming article you posted earlier being junk science.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on November 19, 2016, 07:46:15 AM
Yes, that's what I referred to (even though I misspelled Benghazi)

Clinton or her State Dept. rejected a request to replace a security detail that left a month prior to the attack (which she says she was unaware of), even though there had been 20 incidents reported (which she says she was partially aware of). She didn't talk to anyone who was evacuated, citing a desire not to taint the investigation, yet she, her ambassador, and Obama claimed at the time that Intel showed that it was specifically a protest over a video, prior to a completed investigation. There were no such protests, yet they destroyed the filmmaker sans evidence. When pressed repeatedly about not talking to any survivors from the embassy, and the fact that had she done so, she could not have made her claim, she said she didn't want to bother them, that the FBI was investigating, and what does the attackers motive matter now?

She claims that she was unaware; either she was not doing her job, or she was lying.

Were you really unaware of this exchange before now, Solo?
The State Department had been asking Congress for funds for additional security at all sites for ages.  The finger gets pointed squarely at Congress if anyone beyond the attackers deserve blame for Benghazi.  The place the blame should usually go.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 19, 2016, 02:51:12 PM
This, however, is a poll. How did they vote? Additionally, unless you're comparing Enlisted to Officers, the spread in the poll of officers was listed as T: 26.2%, J: 31.3%, C: 31.7%, Clinton edging out Johnson. Enlisted strongly favored Trump, and disfavored Clinton. Perhaps they heard Bengazi loud and clear; 'what difference does it make now?'

I did mention poll , and I did mention their votes are being counted.
It would be a surprise if those polled were lying, given the military codes
and counting their votes is better than things used to be.
Military polls polling the military aren't known for their inaccuracy.

It's the probably the biggest outlier for Libertarians.



Benghazi?
Kevin McCarthy said it was all about getting Hillary to lose. 
Since that's been accomplished, I doubt anything else happens.
He lost his job because of a dalliance ; harkenning back to :
it matters when it matters and it doesn't when it doesn't.
(not because of accidentally telling the truth about Benghazi)

But you're in luck.
The CIA appointee is the primary dissident on the Benghazi hearings.
Now he's got the whole apparatus of the CIA as his disposable, which
obviously ought to be used, to bring down Hillary some more right?
So what happens when that doesn't happen.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 23, 2016, 04:42:09 PM
This one came together in a hurry.


Computer Dudes didn't like some of the election results, and called Clinton.
She + her team, footdragged it, so the Dudes went public :
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html

Obama says no, wants a smooth transition.
The Nates at 538 and nytimes, looked at the data.
Both found correcting for Race and Education, answered the problem.
i.e. in their opinion there's no there there.

Jill Stein has gone ahead and raised the money to legally challenge the results (see her twitter edit --- nope taken down already) .
So we may have a real recount going on.
Chances are there's nothing to it, but so little is necessary to swing things ...


Also, the current public (!) "faithless electors" count is 6 against Trump, and 2 against Clinton.
Seems to be a lot of scrubbing on this info.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on November 23, 2016, 04:47:17 PM
Both Trump and his surrogates are backing off Clinton.  Conway is suggesting it was just 'campaign talk', and don says he doesn't want to hurt them because they're good people.

My facebook news feed now resembles a series of clips from Scanners.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 23, 2016, 05:17:31 PM
Yeah the emails.

 :flutter Conway is real killer, wrapped up in that baby-doll  :cloud9 voice, and she knows it.
Can't wait to see what dishy sh!t comes out 5 or 10 years from now, that she (no one else) fixed.
"Donny baby, don't talk about pu55y today, please?"


Nikki Haley appointed to the U.N. , smooth sailing on that one.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: altpersona on November 23, 2016, 06:08:49 PM
talk about a no win situation.

no recount / trump wins recount : trump wins... same/ same / armagedon

recount / clinton wins : she says nah and lets trump continue vis a vi al gore in 2000 : trump wins / see above

recount / clinton wins : she say 'hells yeah its mine cheeto boy' : clinton wins / armagedon

the crying would never end if clinton got a recount win.

Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: zook1shoe on November 24, 2016, 04:25:20 AM
(https://s18.postimg.org/5tc4a898l/FB_IMG_1463128302089.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/5tc4a898l/)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on November 24, 2016, 04:42:59 PM
Fun fact!  Trump's administration already is looking like it has a total net worth over 35 billion!  Champion of the common man indeed.

Wilbur Ross, a vulture capitalist, is being considered for Commerce.  He made his money buying up failing steel mills and then selling them for profit.  To off-shores companies.

His education is Betsy DeVos.  She's famous for destroying Detroit's school system.  And making tons of money off of it.  Her brother was the head of Blackwater.  She's in favor of spending public money on private schools.  And tangentially segregation.

EDIT: Also, this. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html#comments)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on November 28, 2016, 01:37:21 PM
talk about a no win situation.

no recount / trump wins recount : trump wins... same/ same / armagedon

recount / clinton wins : she says nah and lets trump continue vis a vi al gore in 2000 : trump wins / see above

recount / clinton wins : she say 'hells yeah its mine cheeto boy' : clinton wins / armagedon

the crying would never end if clinton got a recount win.
Which just goes to show you how clueless Trump is.  He's whined on Twitter about it, when he should be funding it.  Which would be a complete win for him.  Even if he lost the recount, then he'd still be the hero that put an honest election before winning.  Which is probably a bigger thing than being #45.  And would give a lifetime of bragging without all the work of being President Cat Herder.  And if he wins the recount, he gets both prizes.  But, too late!  Whiny baby has tweeted.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 30, 2016, 05:00:50 PM
Munchkin for Treasury.  Munchkin ?

Mnuchin ... was involved with Avatar and X-men,
so I suppose I have (!) to like him on that alone.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on December 05, 2016, 03:49:45 PM
Bush + Rubio + Cruz campaign dudes beyotch loudly at CNN's head, slightly nsfw language (oh mah delicate constitution).
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/1/13803036/gop-boo-cnn-jeff-zucker-defense-trump-harvard

Tyndall does their usual "Covering the Coverers" data.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/26/study-confirms-network-evening-newscasts-have-abandoned-policy-coverage-2016-campaign/214120
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: ketaro on December 05, 2016, 07:51:23 PM
Anyone else see Trump make Ben Carson his Head of Urban Development? As if believing that guy knows anything about anything? :/
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on December 05, 2016, 08:57:18 PM
Anyone else see Trump make Ben Carson his Head of Urban Development? As if believing that guy knows anything about anything? :/

Yeah, it's weird saying a guy who turned down a job he might have vague experience in since he was a surgeon because he admitted incompetence, only to turn around and snap up another one.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on December 05, 2016, 09:05:42 PM
So he's graduated to filling posts with people that don't have anything to do with the briefs purely because of vague political connections?

This anti-corruption thing is going so well.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on December 05, 2016, 09:49:35 PM
No no no.  See, Carson is great for the HUD Secretary.  it has 'urban' as part of its name!  And as Huckabee pointed out, Carson actually use public housing at one point in his life!  That makes him double qualified!
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Kuroimaken on December 06, 2016, 08:38:04 PM

This anti-corruption thing is going so well.

*cackles manicly about first-world problems*

Ah, sorry. That was entirely too rude of me.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on December 06, 2016, 09:06:38 PM

This anti-corruption thing is going so well.

*cackles manicly about first-world problems*

Ah, sorry. That was entirely too rude of me.

It's humorous regardless of how minor the corruption is. And going for populism and anti-corruption then... this.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Kuroimaken on December 06, 2016, 09:47:48 PM

This anti-corruption thing is going so well.

*cackles manicly about first-world problems*

Ah, sorry. That was entirely too rude of me.

It's humorous regardless of how minor the corruption is. And going for populism and anti-corruption then... this.

Oh, I know. I was just thinking about how... relatively easy you guys have got it there.  :P
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on December 06, 2016, 10:10:18 PM
Maybe Trump will fix it.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on December 06, 2016, 10:15:17 PM

This anti-corruption thing is going so well.

*cackles manicly about first-world problems*

Ah, sorry. That was entirely too rude of me.

It's humorous regardless of how minor the corruption is. And going for populism and anti-corruption then... this.

Oh, I know. I was just thinking about how... relatively easy you guys have got it there.  :P

"You guys."

I'm an outside observer too. :P
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on December 07, 2016, 04:55:18 AM

This anti-corruption thing is going so well.

*cackles manicly about first-world problems*

Ah, sorry. That was entirely too rude of me.

It's humorous regardless of how minor the corruption is. And going for populism and anti-corruption then... this.

Oh, I know. I was just thinking about how... relatively easy you guys have got it there.  :P
They're giving a man who gets pissy about Saturday Night Live and gets his news off Twitter the nuclear launch codes.  Everyone should be afraid.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Kuroimaken on December 07, 2016, 11:54:16 AM

This anti-corruption thing is going so well.

*cackles manicly about first-world problems*

Ah, sorry. That was entirely too rude of me.

It's humorous regardless of how minor the corruption is. And going for populism and anti-corruption then... this.

Oh, I know. I was just thinking about how... relatively easy you guys have got it there.  :P
They're giving a man who gets pissy about Saturday Night Live and gets his news off Twitter the nuclear launch codes.  Everyone should be afraid.

We've given the biggest thieves in our history the key to our coffers. And then they made thieving legal, but only for themselves.

At least on your side of the pond there are enough sensible people that if he does decide to press a button someone might be there to stop him.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on December 07, 2016, 06:10:13 PM
Actually our laws are designed so that he alone makes the decision on nukes.  If he wants to do it the only way anyone has of stopping him is shooting him in the head.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Nanshork on December 07, 2016, 06:21:14 PM
Actually our laws are designed so that he alone makes the decision on nukes.  If he wants to do it the only way anyone has of stopping him is shooting him in the head.

The Secretary of Defense has to agree actually, the President can't launch it alone.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on December 07, 2016, 08:29:20 PM
Good thing he won't appoint a yes man, that Donald.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on December 08, 2016, 06:01:24 PM
I thought The Donald could defeat nukes just by his awesomeness alone.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on December 08, 2016, 11:30:47 PM
I thought The Donald could defeat nukes just by his awesomeness alone.

The_Donald would suck in the nukes because it is a raging cesspool devoid of hope or sanity.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on December 09, 2016, 06:08:56 AM
Good thing this isn't War Games and there are actual people that have to push the buttons.  People who have been vetted for sanity.  Unlike our Commander Incompetent.  So it'll only be one or two.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on December 09, 2016, 09:19:01 AM
Have...have you seen our nuclear sites?  You know, the places that have come under fire recently for the people drinking on the job, cheating on the tests (everyone there cheating on the tests, at all levels, facilitated by all levels), the launch silos in disrepair, etc.  I say recently, I mean a couple years ago.  But the problem just went away, not being fixed, people just stopped caring.  Which put us back to before this was common knowledge.  This has been a problem for a while.

Although, that might be a good thing here, maybe the people in charge of turning the keys will just forget how to do it when the order come in.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on December 09, 2016, 04:42:33 PM
Nixon was worse 'cause The Donald isn't a drunk.
story from 2000 ---> https://www.theguardian.com/weekend/story/0,3605,362958,00.html

Yeltsin was (is) a drunk, but he kept his nerve.
story from 2012 ---> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/closecall/


Speculating ... Flynn was 1 of the ISIS intelligence guys, no nukes in those tactics. 
Patraeus wants to get back in, and he's the mop-up-W's-Iraq-mess guy = no chance.
Bannon ?  I'd expect his usual screed tactics to be mouthy about this = all talk , crazy people oops into action (see Comet pizza).
Pence ... very conservative Catholics don't consort with end-of-the-worlders.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on December 09, 2016, 10:05:31 PM
Reminder: 44% of Americans think the world will end in their lifetimes.  A good chunk of them, enough to be noticeable, believe that this will be heralded by a Christian army and a Muslim army fighting in Syria.  ISIS is taking over very specific Syrian cities, because those are the prophesied battlegrounds, they are also trying to do this.  A number of people who really want us to go into Syria are doing this because they want to help usher in the end of the world.  So yeah, a pretty big chunk of conservative Christians would absolutely try to end the world.  I'm not sure Pence is one of them, but just because he's Catholic doesn't mean he won't.

Note: a large portion of the US consider us to be a Christian nation, and thus a Christian army.  We are not, but they consider us as such.  ISIS considers us as such.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on December 12, 2016, 05:32:36 PM
Yeah they've been itching about that even since ISIS went into Syria.

**

Recent story, NOT well titled, usually "Life Expectancy Lower for Trump Voters".
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/life-expectancy-lower-trump-voters-n694421
edit --- don't use this one, found the actual study below

There were a big pile of counties that voted Obama twice, but flipped to Trump.
"But the "health problems" question is fairly consistent across the counties Trump won."
Throw in the unemployment = anti-immigration, too.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on December 13, 2016, 03:57:21 PM
Here's the originating article, much better info.

http://www.centredaily.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/article119636503.html
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on January 10, 2017, 10:02:09 PM
So Trump may or may not be into golden showers and Russia may or may not have blackmail on Trump.  Thanks to anti-information campaigns I cant tell if the story is true or not but this is still everything I ever wanted but didn't know I wanted.  In related news the final words of 2016 were 'The Aristocrats!'

Also in more serious news, Trump's....guy?  I don't know his actual title, but a senior Trump adviser or something, the guy who kept saying 'Says who!' in response to a journalist asking him questions probably was in Prague meeting with Russian intelligence officers to do....stuff (we have no real way of knowing what they talked about).  This happened in July/August.  In response to these allegations, he posted a picture of his passport (the outside, so no stickers/stamps) with text "I have never been to Prague!". He then proceed to admit to heading to Italy in June.  You know, the same time these meeting happened.  In a country where traveling to Prague would require no passport checks.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on January 11, 2017, 04:52:47 PM
Heh, the intelligence agencies sending a pro-tip to the F.B.I. about how to really do it.

iirc - and there's so much reportage froth on this its ridiculous - some of today's supposed material, had been part of a Pre-election briefing.


line 1) ... 4 more years  :D
line 2) ... return to line 1
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on January 20, 2017, 04:43:56 PM
What?  Was something ...  :whistle ... going on today?

Ironically, my i.p. address today is going through Wash DC 20007 (which I was totally unaware of, 'til 2 minutes ago). 


Goldman Sachs is near totally in charge of the economy now ; and "rumor" has it they don't follow anyone else's ideology.  Roll a d20 for result please.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on January 20, 2017, 08:46:39 PM
What?  Was something ...  :whistle ... going on today?

Ironically, my i.p. address today is going through Wash DC 20007 (which I was totally unaware of, 'til 2 minutes ago). 


Goldman Sachs is near totally in charge of the economy now ; and "rumor" has it they don't follow anyone else's ideology.  Roll a d20 for result please.

I think America just rolled a 1, what happens with that?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on January 20, 2017, 09:00:39 PM
What?  Was something ...  :whistle ... going on today?

Ironically, my i.p. address today is going through Wash DC 20007 (which I was totally unaware of, 'til 2 minutes ago). 


Goldman Sachs is near totally in charge of the economy now ; and "rumor" has it they don't follow anyone else's ideology.  Roll a d20 for result please.

I think America just rolled a 1, what happens with that?

Even bigger random events table.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SorO_Lost on January 21, 2017, 07:44:46 PM
Facebook: Bringing God back to America!
Comment: Trump is barely religious.
Facebook: But he had more priests at his inauguration than anyone else!
Comment: Yeah and they all prayed for God to guide Trump as a last ditch effort.


At least my wall isn't totally full of BS.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on January 21, 2017, 08:44:59 PM
Facebook: Bringing God back to America!
Comment: Trump is barely religious.
Facebook: But he had more priests at his inauguration than anyone else!
Comment: Yeah and they all prayed for God to guide Trump as a last ditch effort.

The Pope is on record as having made a statement to that effect.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on January 21, 2017, 09:31:08 PM
He had one of those prosperity Gospel wackadoos too.  Which pretty much get the exact opposite message than what the Big JC was puttin' down.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on January 22, 2017, 09:39:40 AM
iirc he had FOUR prosperity gospel people.  One of whom is a personal friend and adviser.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on January 22, 2017, 11:16:10 AM
Four?  He's really into that heretical blasphemy.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on January 22, 2017, 02:01:24 PM
Trump has said multiple times, this is the religion guy he learned from :  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Vincent_Peale
I don't think the Prosperity guys have given that guy much thought. 


Comment: Yeah and they all prayed for God to guide Trump as a last ditch effort.


 :lol ... heh ...  :-\


Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on January 24, 2017, 05:02:05 PM
Been watching the small talk on Obamacare.


Pharma (of course) was the first vote, splitting both official party lines.

Rand Paul said the code words "repeal And Replace ".
Good Libertarian on repeal but horrors Bad Libertarian
oh he's got to get reelected in KY where KentuckyObamaCare is very popular.

Trump said he wouldn't enforce (ala executive branch) the mandate part.
Repubs have hinted at the 51 vote reconciliation, for partial defunding.
Combined those would slowly (too slowly for the rightmost flank) starve the program.
Hospital congloms don't like this part at all. **

4 Repub plans floating around, Collins from Maine has 4 Senators signed on.
Strong signal from the middle, pushing past the 51 vote # , against the rightmosts.

5+ years of polling that scrubbed of the spittle and bile Obama name
the provisions generally run ~75% in favor.

The Law itself require 60 to overturn, which won't happen without LOTS of centrist Dem negotiating.
CNBC yaks are talking about instability and insurance on investment pricing, going way off the rails.
Looks like Wall Street has finally woken up to real reality on OCare.


** edit --- Trump said the next day + leaked intentionally
that OCare could twist on the vine for 2 years (paraphrasing). 
This is probably an accurate statement, on what they "could" do,
and think would happen if they did so, purely as a negotiation point
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on January 31, 2017, 09:20:26 AM
I predicted 2 years before impeachment.  It looks like it might be 2 weeks.  Either that or we're in more trouble than I thought.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Kuroimaken on February 01, 2017, 09:07:04 AM
I predicted 2 years before impeachment.  It looks like it might be 2 weeks.  Either that or we're in more trouble than I thought.

Wow, and your prez hasn't even been involved in major money leaking scandals yet.  :P
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: ketaro on February 01, 2017, 02:53:50 PM
He is the physical representation of money leaking scandals.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Kuroimaken on February 01, 2017, 04:23:45 PM
He is the physical representation of money leaking scandals.
I mean AS A PRESIDENT, not as a public figure.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on February 01, 2017, 06:23:53 PM
He is the physical representation of money leaking scandals.
I mean AS A PRESIDENT, not as a public figure.

Why even wait at that point?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on February 03, 2017, 03:11:58 PM
[edit]
Umm, I was going to engage with Soro's post, but it seems to have been deleted.  Not sure what the ~official protocol is for this.
see SorO's post below for proper link
[/edit]


One specific thing I don't understand about what the Boy Scouts org are doing, is why is it they are the most vocal + public of youth organizations, about whatever changes they're having trouble with?  These exact same set of problems are happening with 1000s of other youth orgs, but there's no massive p.r. and flame wars associated.

Along those lines, the shirt I'm wearing is a girl scout's Sewing Merit badge, but for boys.  Some sort of manly Libertarianism I presume.
'Nother example, USA women's basketball players are for some unknown reason, too dainty to go pro at the age of 21 (even though all other nationalities allow this Canada Brits Aussies especially) while being able to drink legally and fight in wars, etc.

So wherever the "lines" get drawn, I don't see the connections in the muddy waters.  It's all usually rather confusing to me.
 :???
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: dman11235 on February 04, 2017, 12:27:54 AM
Can you name another youth group like the Boy Scouts?  That's why.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Arz on February 04, 2017, 12:53:54 PM
Can you name another youth group like the Boy Scouts?  That's why.

YMCA
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on February 04, 2017, 06:36:09 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/02/04/the-white-house-cabinet-battle-over-trumps-immigration-ban/?utm_term=.f57c5f8b7c9b  The update is from Spicer, so take it with a grain of salt.

Apparently Bannon is trying to order staff as if he were POTUS himself.  That doesn't bode well.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on February 04, 2017, 11:01:22 PM
I say we call him Wormtongue.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SorO_Lost on February 05, 2017, 01:32:45 AM
Umm, I was going to engage with Soro's post, but it seems to have been deleted.  Not sure what the ~official protocol is for this.
It wasn't, I posted it in the small rant thread (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=16787.msg319906#msg319906) and mostly joked they should have gone full co-ed in my youth instead of waiting so long ;)

One specific thing I don't understand about what the Boy Scouts org are doing, is why is it they are the most vocal + public of youth organizations, about whatever changes they're having trouble with?  These exact same set of problems are happening with 1000s of other youth orgs, but there's no massive p.r. and flame wars associated.
It's the Boy Scouts, they are dual combination of religion and military that boosts a strong moral code and influential leaders. Conservationists love them because they are everything that made this nation great, outdoors, leadership, Duty to God!, morals, guns, camping, fire, religion, _insert_buzzword_here, etc. And libertarians hate the shit out of them because they are everything that's wrong with the nation for exactly the same reasons.

And they can be targeted. Like originally their "gay policy" was a direct copy from the US military, "don't ask, don't tell" and violating either end of that got you kicked out. However the US military wasn't going to budge but over on the Boy Scout side multiple gay leaders showed up to meetings with kids wearing dick costumes and some how people flocked to supporting them.  And you can see it again in the gender issue. Public schools use gender=sex rather than tumblr's newest invented identity spectrum and they failed so hard to change that it's not funny. So they went back to picking on BSA again whom this time learned their lesson and is a little more proactive, however it also makes them yielding so if anything they just painted an even larger target on their back. Anyway...

Along those lines, the shirt I'm wearing is a girl scout's Sewing Merit badge, but for boys.
And that's fine.

The thing is, there is a gender difference. It's the inverse of pretending the gay away and built on the same concepts of sexual discrimination. Having a masculine presentation on things just really doesn't attract everyone. For example, Venturing is a advanced carbon copy program of the Boy Scouts that even offers four alternative areas of focus. Like Ranger is basically Eagle Scout-like, but they also have Quartermaster (for seafarers), Quest is general sports which includes everything from football to gymnastics to Judo and volleyball, and even Trust which is religious-specific.

And it turns out, there just isn't a lot of female teenagers that have any interest in it. A core requirement of a successfully program is appealing to it's target audience and Venturing is failing. Most of it's numbers come from dual registering which is done for free thanks to how BSA does membership which means most of it's youth added $0 to the budget. Overall, the Boy Scouts have just plain failed to reach teenage girls.

And the thing is, they know they did. They got stuck with two choices, sacrificing the appeal all of the current membership enjoys but trying to reach the females or invent a new program. Well the former costs membership and the latter, well we already have statistics that prove an obviously masculine-leaning team isn't the best kind of people to hire out for femininity. So the only solution is hope someone else comes up with something.

Like the American Heritage Girls is pretty much a girl take on Cub/Boy Scouts and it seems to work better than Venturing. They are succeeding, at least somewhat, where BSA has failed. And here is the thing, AHG got an official "Memorandum of Mutual Support" from the BSA several years ago for offering at least some kind of good answer to the gender-differences. BSA loves them.



Which is probably also a good time for a quick tangent that could really help to open your eyes provided you're up to interpetating my normal levels of BS and style.

Take the recent mother signed her daughter-as-a-boy thing that happening in Ohio (or w/e) before BSA starting allowing trans in. The Boy Scouts have a strong moral code and they take pride in that, and by definition that also means they can't compromise on certain things. Period. The mother saw shiny patches and a good program, she thinks it's unfair. So she lied on her child's application. She tells her daughter (or w/e) to pretend she's a real boy. This mother set an example and was teaching her daughter that dishonesty is a good short cut. The mother could have signed up for any other program, invented her own, or simply mimiced the things the Cub Scouts were doing at home, one of of hundreds of other options but nope.

Does that sound very Trustworthy and Honest to you?
Does it really sound like the child is getting a great message to become a great person?
No, no it does not. It's all about the shinies which is nothing more than the appeal, not the goal, of the program.

So now, let me ask you this.
If a women completes all the Requirement for Eagle should she be allowed to receive it?
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on February 06, 2017, 04:36:19 PM
Sorry.  That's the right link.  Editing my earlier post for it.



"my normal levels of BS and style."
True, however my  normal levels, may on occasion cause wipeouts in either direction. (this was certainly one of them on my part)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on February 06, 2017, 07:16:26 PM
NY Times is reporting executive order adding Bannon to Security Council was at least partially written by Bannon, Trump wasn't briefed on it, and didn't find out it added Bannon to Council till after he signed it.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on February 06, 2017, 10:07:52 PM
NY Times is reporting executive order adding Bannon to Security Council was at least partially written by Bannon, Trump wasn't briefed on it, and didn't find out it added Bannon to Council till after he signed it.

Trump is naturally claiming it's all fake.

I wouldn't put it past him to have seriously put more time into picking curtains than reading what he's signing though.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Solo on February 06, 2017, 11:40:50 PM
NY Times is reporting executive order adding Bannon to Security Council was at least partially written by Bannon, Trump wasn't briefed on it, and didn't find out it added Bannon to Council till after he signed it.

You mean the failing New York Times, very biased, terribly unfair.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on February 07, 2017, 05:15:07 PM
Do you think that maybe Bannon actually thinks he can pull off this leninist inspired coup that he talks (present tense) about ?
Personally :  I'm pretty sure by now, that's his intention.  And that it won't work.

DeVos gets in 50/50+1.
Puzder is delayed via illegal nanny (oops).

Can you name another youth group like the Boy Scouts?  That's why.

YMCA

Girl Scouts (not as much Church sponsorship as the Boys)
AmeriCorps (congress sorta passed a constitution+loyalty thing)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on February 07, 2017, 05:19:30 PM

I wouldn't put it past him <trump> to have seriously put more time into picking curtains than reading what he's signing though.

 :D  yeah he removed the oval office Bush 43 rug that Obama didn't care about.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: ketaro on February 07, 2017, 07:58:40 PM
How the fuck does a vote on devos get to a 50/50 point?

Gawd. Well, at least we don't need to fear for bears lurking our school grounds anymore  :rolleyes
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: bhu on February 07, 2017, 08:22:45 PM
House Republicans have voted to eliminate the only federal agency that ensures the voting machines arent hacked.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: phaedrusxy on February 07, 2017, 08:24:00 PM
House Republicans have voted to eliminate the only federal agency that ensures the voting machines arent hacked.
sounds about par for the fucking course...
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on February 08, 2017, 02:33:17 AM
House Republicans have voted to eliminate the only federal agency that ensures the voting machines arent hacked.
Good, that clears the way to put the Nevada Gaming Commission in charge of them.  They care more about security in slot machines than the government has ever cared about voting machines.  Having actual fucking standards and all that.  That's how piss poor we treat voting, its less secure than slot machines and that's still too secure for the swamp weasels.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: linklord231 on February 08, 2017, 07:59:35 AM
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/voting_machines.png)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on February 08, 2017, 04:49:47 PM
 :lol that fvckin' punch-line is  :lmao
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on February 08, 2017, 07:13:13 PM
Now Trump's using the official POTUS account to criticise a company for not stocking his daughter's clothing...
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on February 14, 2017, 07:19:03 PM
Oroville Dam in California is F.U.B.A.R.-ed.
Here's an actual knows his stuff engineer commenting :  http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article132356269.html

Basically there's a quadruple failure going on.
"The Dam part of The Dam" is fine, as is the mountain and the bedrock.
The normal power generator section is jammed by debris.
The Main Spillway has that lovely plume from the new channel. 
As horrible as it looks, they had to send 100,000 cfs into it to save the Emergency spillway, and it held, it just looks really bad.
The "auxiliary"=emergency spillway eroded UP the hill, right up to the concrete pad top at 2 points.

They're sending loaded mining trucks to the 1 worst part of the concrete pad.
They aren't saying they'd rather fix the other 1 first, because it doesn't matter ... they can't reach it.

White Knuckling it time for this first week with 6-8 inches of rain (and some snow) on the way.
They aren't saying it'll hold for the spring melt season.

**

They're clearing main spillway debris out from the powerplant outlet.
It looks like they think they're rebuilding it, not just the emergency hold your breath stuff.
"Weathered Bedrock" that wasn't weathered when they built the dam, seems to be the biggest problem.
Metabunk has a long but decent thread of details, with very solid and quick moderating.
https://www.metabunk.org/
(edit see better link below)
(edit on 2-16)

**

Here's what they're doing as of 2-17 (edit see better link below)
https://www.metabunk.org/oroville-dam-spillway-failure.t8381/page-22#post-201036

**

2-20 edit , Metabunk has a collected details thread now :
https://www.metabunk.org/oroville-dam-spillway-thread-quick-links.t8416/

Construction started in '61, but late 60s Geology discovered some things about Volcanic rock, that allows a "hammering" of bedrock seams.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on March 31, 2017, 04:24:42 PM
Flynn offers talk for Immunity.

That's incredible, but also weird. 
Trump can just pardon him, and the Repub House isn't flipping on Trump (at least not yet).

What's his angle to add this to his defense table?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on May 10, 2017, 05:21:28 PM
Latest CNN poll just before Comey's firing, had Trump with an 85% approval rating among Republicans.

It's unbelievable Trump's inner circle was so ahistorical, that they really did believe they'd curry favor from the Dems by firing Comey ... not noticing the Nixon parallels at all.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Chemus on May 10, 2017, 09:13:53 PM
Other than total capitulation, there's no way for them to curry favor.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on June 09, 2017, 03:27:02 PM
Normally a news day that included :

a) Wall Street Journal and a Fox News anchor, saying their president is The problem
b) the Attorney General offers to resign
c) Kansas Gov Brownback has his veto overridden
d) Gulf Sunnis go to war with Qatar, all but shooting, USA's #1 isis-fight base caught literally in the middle

... wouldn't pass by with nary a notice.
But look look-it , look over there ... John McCain doing top notch performance art , and Ho- :love -okers too !!

This massive amount of noise is easy cover, for other major shenanigans.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 03, 2017, 04:14:20 PM
Hope a few of y'all are planning on some off year voting on Tuesday.


Steve Case the AOL guy, was on CNBC ...
< dang kids --- AOL is from the pre- texting , and pre- destruction of the Record business , era of the interwebs --- dang kids >
 :D :whistle

... and he pointed out that SF/SanJose + NewYork City + Boston, account for 75% of the venture capital in the country.
While he didn't clarify if that was a Tech-only figure or not, it gets more action than non-tech regardless.
And his larger point was, the rest of the country really are being pa$$ed by, on the most dynamic part of the economy.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on December 01, 2017, 04:11:34 PM
( ignoring the Flynn news for now )


This recent off-off year election, had Lean Dem states go Dem.  Hardly a surprise. 
On a d&d-o-centric 3d6 curve it might be a 9 or 12, but certainly not an 8 or 13.
For all the noise (!) it's a boringly normal result.

Chester County 2nd s.w. of downtown Philly, voted Dem for the first time ever.
The reporting was since 1799, but the Dems didn't exist til 1828.
They voted Federalist during the Democratic-Rebuplicans era.
That's a serious outlier.

New Jersey gov race, had some very outlier exit polls.
Men voted +5 to 10% Democrat, and Women voted +5 to 10% Republican.
Exit polls are quite unreliable ... but this is just plain old weird.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: RobbyPants on May 17, 2018, 08:37:00 AM
The Senate passes a measure repealing changes to net neutrality (https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/politics/net-neutrality-vote-senate-democrats/index.html). All 49 Senate Democrats backed the measure, along with Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK) and John Kennedy (LA). Of course, now it has to go to the GOP-controlled House where it will likely die.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Nanshork on May 17, 2018, 11:39:40 AM
Even if it passed somehow it will get vetoed.

I expect this to become a midterms topic.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Kuroimaken on May 17, 2018, 12:25:50 PM
The whole wording on that article has me confused since I haven't kept up with the debate. Did they vote against or for net neutrality?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Nanshork on May 17, 2018, 01:02:27 PM
The whole wording on that article has me confused since I haven't kept up with the debate. Did they vote against or for net neutrality?

The FCC voted to change the net neutrality rules by removing them.

The senate passed a measure to repeal the FCC's change, thus keeping Net Neutrality in place.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Kuroimaken on May 17, 2018, 02:50:53 PM
Which Trump will likely not endorse, making net neutrality not a thing?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Nanshork on May 17, 2018, 03:35:00 PM
Which Trump will likely not endorse, making net neutrality not a thing?

Exactly.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Keldar on May 17, 2018, 11:25:39 PM
Which Trump will likely not endorse, making net neutrality not a thing?
If its associated with Obama in any way, he's agin' it.  Which is why he puts catsup on his well done steaks.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on November 03, 2018, 10:30:50 AM
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JsOPHyuAuT0/hqdefault.jpg)

Get ready.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on November 03, 2018, 10:34:47 AM
Well, that couldn't be phrased more ominously.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 03, 2018, 02:33:25 PM
Uh-huh.

538 has it :
84% chance Dems retake the House
84% chance Repubs retain the Senate
and a 70% chance Hillary defeats Trump ...

So get out and Vote.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on November 03, 2018, 03:27:00 PM
Though they have an interesting feature covering that the 15% chance (in both cases) is actually contingent on a massive polling error, rather than simply being within the expected range of outcomes.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on November 04, 2018, 05:31:24 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/Kqmb12w.jpg)

Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on November 05, 2018, 04:45:16 AM
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/499/735/83e.jpg)

I'm burning up!
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 05, 2018, 04:41:54 PM
T minus 25 hours, 'til the results start rolling in.


My US senate is a 15 point margin.  Governor is ~20.  US House is probably 30+, but it's a new ungerrymandered district.  State House + Senate are 30 to 40.  The first place and second place guys are nearly assumed.

The us senate race is the most national related, hence the most accurate polling.  I've looked for at least one race, to vote 3rd party, since I started voting.  This one loses about half of the normal Libertarian votes to Trump (i.e. Paleos are Paleos  :pout regardless of fancying up the language/philosophy) ... so I'm voting for that guy, for the most impact of my vote, knowing full well ahead of time he'll lose.

Should be lots of national action, with the California seats making the final difference in the House.
Popcorn time.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on November 06, 2018, 07:01:40 AM
GO GO GO GO GO GO!!!!
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 06, 2018, 04:23:06 PM
I voted.

I guinea-pigged myself to use the new handicap voting machine ; which the poll workers are fine with, they don't know how to use them otherwise.
Paper in try #1 = error.
Paper in try #2 = error (just so we're straight, I can put paper into slot, even my kitty avatar can do that)
Paper in try #3 = contact election official
Election guy presses button saying :  "Let's try this."  (indicating he's taking a shot in the dark)
Paper in try #4 = good to go
Election guy says :  "I don't know what happened."
So I vote.
I press "Done"
Machine goes into processing ballot mode.
Processing ballot symbol pops up, rotates quarters like a clock.
Processing ballot symbol stays up.
5 minutes go by.
Election guy says :  "It's done this before."
---> indicating that no, someone had actually used it before, and they didn't really need a guinea-pig, but clearly they (all) needed the practice
Machine throws error code, different category from earlier.
Election guy says :  "It should spit the ballot out."
X minutes go by.
---> no good patriotic deed goes unpunished right?
Machine spits out paper.
Machine didn't tabulate vote, at all, it's blank.
Election guy goes :  "Huh?"
---> indicating that something happened they didn't cover in training (not that that could possibly have made a difference)
"I guess you can vote the traditional way."
"Sounds good to me."
I vote.
I get my "I Voted" sticker.
I chat with election guy for a while.
5 minutes go by.
Woman says Hi to me.
I have no recollection who this is.
I identify myself, to speed things along.
She knows someone in common 2 steps removed, from a long long time ago.
Blah blah blah.
Hey Thor, where'd this Valkyrie come from ?!
I had a crush on her when I was 10.

I have a sly smile on my face right now.
---> indicating don't just stand there, bust a move, if you want it, you got it baby

By far the sexiest vote I've ever cast.
I'm distracted, what were you saying ...
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: zook1shoe on November 07, 2018, 01:15:16 AM
i'm glad the house flipped, the 2 anti-gerrymandering and 1 slavery exemption ban initiatives passed, and a gay Dem beat a hardcore Repub.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: RedWarlock on November 07, 2018, 01:32:05 AM
Michigan gets legal weed, so there's that.. I've heard it goes into effect Jan 1st...
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: zook1shoe on November 07, 2018, 02:11:24 AM
several of my good friends are delighted by that. i hope they use some of the funds to fix their roads.... they are horrendous
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on November 07, 2018, 01:41:02 PM
Now, if only Kemp had paid for abusing his position as Secretary of State to mess with the election.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: zook1shoe on November 07, 2018, 03:12:05 PM
that was a tragedy
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raunchel on November 08, 2018, 11:23:19 AM
Wait, you actually get a sticker to say that you voted?
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Nanshork on November 08, 2018, 12:32:06 PM
Wait, you actually get a sticker to say that you voted?

That's standard in US elections. I have always been offered a sticker.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 08, 2018, 04:15:13 PM
Yep.  This one in particular.

(https://baytech-label.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/366/full/i-voted-oval-sticker-9437-1914.jpg?2016)
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: SolEiji on November 08, 2018, 08:04:01 PM
What a last few days.  The house is blue, and then Trump immediately shits the bed and triggers the Rapid Response protests.  I just came back from it.  I hope that Mueller will be ok; fortunately it is looking like Whit's promotion may not even be legal.  Let's hope so.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: Raineh Daze on November 08, 2018, 08:20:53 PM
I'm just shaking my head at all the attempts to retroactively mess with vote totals (trying to stop mail-in votes being counted in parts of Arizona). Stop literally undermining democracy, rather than just trying to oppose it.
Title: Re: The Politics Thread v3
Post by: zook1shoe on November 09, 2018, 01:25:03 AM
the Georgia race is pretty insane right now. sounds like the purged votes by the 'winning' candidate is up to 340,000 (who is the current Secretary of State in his own race)

the conservatives know that, if voter turnout is high, they will lose.
- Voter IDs for the indigenous in North Dakota that requires physical addresses, when they don't have them on reservations.
- polling locations in gated communities that require IDs, when the state doesn't require IDs.
- illegal purging of votes based on bullshit.
- reduced number of locations and/or machines to ramp voting times to 3+ hours. at least it's not summer, like the primaries.
- malfunctioning machines (not so much this election), that would vote for the conservative candidate even though you voted Democrat for the whole ballot.
- running out of ballots