General politics thread (was: General U.S. politics thread)

KilgoreTrout

glennmagusharvey wrote: »

The emails are probably old. Also, Assange is weaksauce.

Even so, I'm glad that WikiLeaks exists.

glennmagusharvey

lrdgck wrote: »

That sounds like a punchline of some edgy joke of tomorrow. I mean, look at it. I can totally see it going hand-in-hand with a Hitler joke in some adult American animated series.

(For the record, I also know it's awful.)

More seriously (the "epsilon bigger than zero" kind of "more", but still), our favourite amphibian strikes back. You've probably heard of it anyway, but still, dutifully do I report it:

Prominently featured over Trump's right shoulder: popular white nationalist symbol, Pepe the Frog.

it's not photoshopped correctly unless it has pepe peeing on trump

Serocco3

Progressives are pushing for the public option ahead of schedule, with major sponsors including Jeff Merkley (Bee's senator), Bernie Sanders (of course), Dick Durbin, Patty Murray, even Charles fucking Schumer.


Other sponsors include Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) and Al Franken (Minn.).

When even Schumer and Feinstein are on your side, you're probably gonna win. We just need a push.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57d997f8e4b0071a6e04d49f

Earthlight_Ray

Twenty sixteen, what a year. Pepe has come so far. :,)

Stormtroper

> Pepe

> Not 'Make America Great Again' Momiji

glennmagusharvey

Serocco3 wrote: »

Progressives are pushing for the public option ahead of schedule, with major sponsors including Jeff Merkley (Bee's senator), Bernie Sanders (of course), Dick Durbin, Patty Murray, even Charles fucking Schumer.


Other sponsors include Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) and Al Franken (Minn.).

When even Schumer and Feinstein are on your side, you're probably gonna win. We just need a push.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57d997f8e4b0071a6e04d49f

So basically they're pushing the envelope and by doing so giving Clinton political cover on the issue of healthcare reform.  Nice.

Serocco3

Speaking of Clinton, she's now refused to say that she will renominate Merrick Garland, signaling that she'd go for someone else after all.



http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-15/hillary-clinton-refuses-to-commit-to-merrick-garland-as-her-supreme-court-pick?context=amp



http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-15/hillary-clinton-hints-she-may-not-renominate-garland-for-court

KilgoreTrout

Here is the latest example I've seen of something which JBM.

The current editor-in-chief of Mother Jones tweeted that she had never hated millennials more after reading that a lot of them planned to vote third-party, either Stein or Johnson.

Putting aside the political reasons for this for just a second, allow me to request that somebody shoot me in the head if I ever become the sort of person who goes around complaining about "kids today suck, back in my day young people acted better, blah de blah blah blah".

Now, back to politics. Here's a response to that which I liked:

"Yes, it's young people that are the problem, not the fact that you back a terrible candidate that can barely handle a bumbling chauvinist"

The Democratic establishment has done an excellent job of alienating and angering people who are actually liberal, as opposed to liberal in name only like they (Democratic politicians) are. People who are sick of the goddamn war on terror, of the military-industrial complex, etc. If the majority of those people are millennials, that's neither here nor there; the point is that the Democratic establishment has sent a message: "We do not give a shit about what you want. Now be good little boys and girls and vote for the woman who's made it clear she plans to continue all the things you're upset that Obama and Bush were doing."

If that's what they're gonna be like, then it should be absolutely no surprise that some people will not be loyal to the Democratic party, that those people will choose to walk away. Not go over to the Republicans, just walk away. You want people's support, Democrats? Fucking earn it. Don't take it for granted. You took it for granted and that's why this race is far, far closer than it ought to be.

BassFishing

Lol, Obama deporting more peeps than any other prez and now this: http://www.democracynow.org/2015/7/16/mass_graves_of_immigrants_found_in

Burying someone in a milk crate (calcium is good for bones?) while the funeral company has connections to the governor. This just perfectly encapsulates the state of the world. 

Serocco

Oh he did it again. He fucking did it again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-clinton-bodyguards_us_57dc7827e4b0071a6e07a93c

Trump called for Hillary's assassination, AGAIN. Good fuck, he's a lunatic.

KilgoreTrout

^ While he isn't going so far as to say "somebody ought to kill her" or anything, he is either entirely missing the point of gun control laws or hoping that voters will miss the point.

TRUMP: “She’s very much against the Second Amendment. She wants to destroy your Second Amendment. Guns, guns, guns, right? I think what we should do is, she goes around with armed bodyguards like you have never seen before. I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons, they should disarm. I think they should disarm immediately. Take their guns away. She doesn’t want guns. Let’s see what happens to her. Take their guns away, OK, it would be very dangerous.”

It's basically more "If you don't have guns protecting you in this dangerous world then you will probably get KILLED by some TERRORIST or CRIMINAL!" scare tactics. (Of course, the average Republican politician wouldn't go so far as to suggest the Democratic candidate be inadequately protected.)

But since when have Democrats, or anybody else for that matter, suggested that Secret Service agents shouldn't have guns, or that police shouldn't have guns, or that security guards shouldn't have guns? The argument doesn't hold water, because while Hillary herself might not carry a gun, she's pretty safe due to having protection. Likewise, if gun laws were reformed, the average person wouldn't have their own gun but they'd still be pretty safe due to police protection, security protection, and the much lower number of violent criminals with access to guns.

Bee

It's extremely debatable that people would be less safe if the average person didn't have a weapon (remember, I come from the sticks where police response times are horrendous and you actually have to be ready for shit like cougars walking into your yard).  But hoarding is out of control, pushing registration and background checks is kind of a slam dunk, and I'd even be quite in favor of licensing, competency and safety checks, and setting up emergency response courses and standards.

We're expressly protecting a well-regulated militia.  Let's maybe regulate that shit.  Pushing guns as toys like Republicans or threats like Democrats are both wrong.  Guns are a responsibility.

lrdgck

I'm generally of the opinion that there is no practical reason to own guns in the conditions I'm used to, but I'd probably be mildly in the pro-gun camp if I was an American. Too much of a mess to make big changes to it, feels like. 'Course, I'm not an American.

Bee

The sheer sparseness of our rural areas really is a situation that's pretty alien to most of Europe.  Or even to our own east coast cities.

Our shit-awful worker mobility doesn't help.  A three-hour drive from Portland down a main interstate feels worlds apart, even before you start going over the mountains and into the real flyover country.  But the city is such a black hole that almost nobody can leave and even see these other perspectives, and the sticks are usually so poor that they're not much better.

KilgoreTrout

I guess it would be a different story if you lived in a place where you pretty much had to look out for yourself at least temporarily.

Another discussion worth having is whether cops even necessarily need them, given that A) people in other countries say that police there are able to do their jobs just fine without firearms and as everybody knows by now, cops can't always be trusted with a gun.

But yeah, regulation, get rid of assault rifles at the very least.

Bee

Assault weapon bans are the very definition of pointless feel-good filler legislation.  Banning semi-auto rifles rarely used in homicide anyway, and basing the definition on cosmetic features that have little to do with the actual efficacy of the weapon, is so utterly pointless.  You'd impede sport shooters and little else.  The full-autos people think of when people say "assault weapon ban" have already been regulated extremely tightly for decades.

The overwhelming majority of gun crime is committed with handguns, and even the mass shootings we've seen of late only take Big Scary Rifles because they're Big and Scary and make headlines.

As for the other question, cops definitely need firearms right now, if for no other reason than because we have so many criminals who do.  That said, we're in exceedingly desperate need of better training for de-escalation, less-than-lethal incapacitation, and racial awareness.

There was a case a while back where some Deep South PD took an anti-gun protester and had him take a training scenario.  He ended up shooting the opponent within a few seconds.  But upon watching the video you start realizing things like where was his backup, why was he not equipped with literally anything else, and of course that it's very easy to tell the cop-as-suspect to just immediately run up to the guy without a word and try to beat the hell out of him instead of talking like real people (even criminals) do.  Granted FATS training is supposed to have some situations where that happens so you're trained to do what you have to if necessary -- but having that be literally the only front-facing scenario you allow an outsider to see or take part in is incredibly stupid.

Serocco3

Just a reminder: Trump keeps calling for Clinton's assassination.



And he's now leading in recent poll averages in Ohio and Florida.

lrdgck

Looks like they don't like her there.

Serocco3

glennmagusharvey

Serocco3 wrote: »

Just a reminder: Trump keeps calling for Clinton's assassination.



And he's now leading in recent poll averages in Ohio and Florida.

The polls have reflected a sagging of Clinton's numbers following her bout with pneumonia and stuff like that.  Trump implying Clinton's assassination for the second time hasn't had time to be baked into a good poll yet.

I'd like to see how things look in a week or two.

glennmagusharvey

Bee wrote: »

The sheer sparseness of our rural areas really is a situation that's pretty alien to most of Europe.  Or even to our own east coast cities.

Our shit-awful worker mobility doesn't help.  A three-hour drive from Portland down a main interstate feels worlds apart, even before you start going over the mountains and into the real flyover country.  But the city is such a black hole that almost nobody can leave and even see these other perspectives, and the sticks are usually so poor that they're not much better.

How well would a licensing scheme work?

I mean, it's pretty much impossible to get anywhere in the US without a car, and driving isn't a universal right.

Besides, a licensing scheme would actually make sense under the wording of the Constitution, specifying the need for a "well-regulated militia".

Of course, this would be roundly hated by all those paranoid "soverign citizen" nuts who daydream Hollywood-style about enacting last stands and becoming anti-government resistance fighters movie heroes.

BassFishing

From a Dutch satirical program on Clinton's health:

Serocco

You know how earlier I praised Elizabeth Warren for trying to push Clinton to the left?

I stand by that, but I'm here to show you the opposite perspective by The Humanist Report, who thinks Warren is a sellout. I honestly have less respect for Humanist Report because of this.

glennmagusharvey

i look at that preview image with the stupid speech bubbles and i already have less respect for them

Serocco

Sadly, this is a common view among Bernie or Busters.

Bee

Given the alternative is literally stirring up white supremacists, it can very easily be argued that any concession to Hillary isn't selling out so much as having a ransom note mailed to your doorstep.

Serocco

Here is TYT completely eviscerating Jill Stein for saying there's no difference between Trump and Hillary

Serocco

The most important point was made by Ben: most of our presidents tend to be reelected, or given another term after filling out the remainder of one before.

If Trump wins, there's an excellent chance that he will win reelection, because that's what we do. I'll quote him: "I do not know where people think that, somehow, there'll be this giant standup moment where all the right minded people say no to Donald Trump AFTER we've elected him President."

He continued: "The time to stand up to Donald Trump is RIGHT NOW!"

KilgoreTrout

No, if I vote for Jill Stein I am not saying I want Trump to be president.

Consider me Achilles In His Tent. I'm only coming out to flip off both candidates by casting the Stein vote before going back in.

glennmagusharvey

i don't think tropes work that way

also, what are your US Senate, US House, state-level statewide, state senate, and state house races?