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

Serocco · 2017-03-22 11:47:41

She has a point. Hate and fear are always stronger than love and hope. It's easier to mobilize people against an enemy than rally them to a cause.

Serocco · 2017-03-22 13:31:59

Gavin Newsom, lieutenant governor of California, will announce single payer Healthcare as part of his platform when he runs for Governor in 2018.

fourteenwings · 2017-03-22 13:53:36

This was fun to read. even if it was about lobbying

glennmagusharvey · 2017-03-22 18:09:10

Yesterday's wild special election in Philly: 7% to Lucinda Little (R), 93% write-in votes (yet to be fully counted).

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/03/22/write-in-candidate-special-election/

vandro · 2017-03-22 19:25:39

Well, to be honest, protesting is a useful tactic for public engagement but that doesn't have to translate to voting at all. Voting does not elicit such fervor are sticking it to the man.

Serocco · 2017-03-22 23:44:03

That was a fucking insane special election. A rural Republican incumbent got 7 percent to the Democrat/Green's 93 percent.

Fucking destroyed.

glennmagusharvey · 2017-03-22 23:59:31

Serocco wrote: »

That was a fucking insane special election. A rural Republican incumbent got 7 percent to the Democrat/Green's 93 percent.

Fucking destroyed.

"Rural"? This is a north Philadelphia district. Map here: https://ballotpedia.org/Pennsylvania_House_of_Representatives_District_197#/media/File:PA_HD_197.JPG

About 85% of the registered voters are registered Democrats, and about 5% are registered Republicans, I've read. So Little (R)'s performance actually means she picked up about 2% non-Republicans, assuming she got all 5% of Republicans.

To be fair, I can't figure out who Lucinda Little is, aside from being a candidate, and (according to one source) "a clinical research director for a firm that links doctors and pharmaceutical companies for clinical trials" and "a former Democrat who said she and her husband, Jeffrey Little, left that party due to the history of corruption in the area". Pennsylvania law does specify she has to live in the district.

Serocco · 2017-03-23 00:13:09

Still a net gain for a Republican to lose.

glennmagusharvey · 2017-03-23 01:02:44

Serocco wrote: »

Still a net gain for a Republican to lose.

Better than a Republican rental, yeah. But I'll wait until Friday to see how the votes tally up before celebrating.

FWIW I'm kinda hoping the Green wins actually.

Serocco · 2017-03-23 02:20:31

Still rekt beyond belief. Also Manafort, Trump's former campaign chief, once stole 19 million dollars from a Russian oligarch before becoming Trump's campaign chief.

glennmagusharvey · 2017-03-23 18:51:10

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sd-me-hunter-ethics-20170323-story.html

So this guy, Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA-50), is being investigated by the Justice Department, it seems.

Not sure how well the current Justice Department actually works, but at least it throws more mud on Hunter.

Too bad his district is like R+14.

This is probably a good time though to revisit the story about his son spending $1302 worth of campaign money on Steam.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sdut-hunter-video-games-2016apr05-htmlstory.html

I don't think I've event spent that much money on Steam in total, in the 6+ years I've been on it.

glennmagusharvey · 2017-03-24 23:58:23

Pennsylvania House of Representatives, District 197, Special Election, 2017


Party		Candidate	Vote %	Votes
	Democratic	Emilio Vazquez (Write-in)	80.4%	1,964
	Green	Cheri Honkala (Write-in)	11.5%	280
	Republican	Lucinda Little	8.1%	198
Total Votes				2,442

source: https://ballotpedia.org/Pennsylvania_House_of_Representatives_District_197

glennmagusharvey · 2017-03-26 00:17:59

> Paul Ryan pulls vote on AHCA, admits failure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdOPBP9vuZA

glennmagusharvey · 2017-03-26 09:28:29

meanwhile: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/325410-senate-votes-to-block-internet-privacy-regulations

glennmagusharvey · 2017-03-26 18:56:13

glennmagusharvey wrote: »

> Paul Ryan pulls vote on AHCA, admits failure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdOPBP9vuZA

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/03/25/Conservative-group-goofs-runs-ads-celebrating-Obamacare-repeal/2491490478812/

Naas_Human · 2017-03-26 19:50:59

https://twitter.com/tomisokay/status/845470197578432512

glennmagusharvey · 2017-03-27 19:42:48

Sort of an important thing, y'know? As in, online privacy.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/we-have-24-hours-save-online-privacy-rules

TL;DR a bill that repeals the FCC's privacy rules, so that consumer internet usage data can be sold without the consumer's consent.

Apparently it also uses an arcane thing called a Congressional Review Act which causes it so that the FCC can't reinstate these rules without congressional approval, either.

The Senate voted on this last week and it passed 50-48. A bit of a surprise to me: it was a party-line vote. 50 Rs in favor, 48 Ds (and Is) opposed. Internet stuff is starting to break into the political mainstream I guess?

glennmagusharvey · 2017-03-28 00:42:20

Meanwhile, lulz are being rolled up: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/27/1647780/--GOPDnD-is-Great-and-Accurate

Naas_Human · 2017-03-28 12:56:20

KilgoreTrout · 2017-03-28 18:31:51

So, um, I ended up feeling pretty embarrassed after saying that there was no way Trump would win and it ended up happening.

I hadn't realized, and I doubt a lot of others did either, that he his message was more than just bigotry and xenophobia. He was talking a lot about TPP, which was one of the few issues he didn't flip-flop on during his campaign. People in the Rust Belt felt NAFTA had really hurt them (and whether or not you agree that it's true, that's their perception), that TPP would make it worse, and saw it like this: Obama was for TPP, Hillary had been very much in favour of TPP before she reversed her position late in the race, and Trump was talking about how TPP was bad, how he was gonna stop outsourcing American jobs, etc.

I've seen people say "If you voted for Trump because of TPP despite everything he said about Muslims and Mexicans and so on, you're a horrible person." As bad as Trump is and as sickening as it is that he's doing (mostly) all of the worst things he said he would or simply going back on his word, I don't think it's that simple. Like, Hillary Clinton was and is very pro-intervention and has never struck me as too concerned about collateral damage, but we were all told to overlook that and vote for her anyway because she was the lesser evil. Which lots of people did, even if overall they had a negative opinion of her. I'm sure a lot of people had an overall negative opinion of Trump, but they saw him as the lesser evil because he claimed he was going to change the status quo and bring jobs back. So Rust Belt voters may have felt like they had a choice: one candidate who represented a continuation of the status quo that had put them on the brink of poverty and who was going to make things worse with TPP, or a candidate who kept on vowing to kill TPP. (And, to give the devil his due, he actually did do THAT, even though he broke lots of other promises.)

Given what a disaster Trump's been up to this point, it's no surprise to me that a lot of people who voted for him now wish they hadn't.

glennmagusharvey · 2017-04-02 04:03:44

Here are the votes of each Representative and Senator on the bill to end FCC rules on consumer privacy -- i.e. the rules preventing ISPs from selling customers' web browsing information.

U.S. House of Representatives: 215 to 205
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml

U.S. Senate: 50 to 48
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00094#position

Convenient list version with full names, states, and donations received from the telecom industry:
http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale

Note that all the Yes votes are from Republicans. In the Senate, all Democrats voted No while two Republicans abstained. In the House, 190 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted no; 3 Democrats and 9 Republicans abstained.

Serocco · 2017-04-03 14:04:21

This is a disaster

glennmagusharvey · 2017-04-04 21:16:30

Serocco wrote: »

This is a disaster

Aaaaand Trump signed it.

Speaking of more stupid shit Trump is involved in: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/4/1650076/-Trump-voters-are-upset-the-new-wall-could-put-their-homes-on-the-Mexico-side-of-the-border

KilgoreTrout · 2017-04-05 19:44:16

If you didn't hear about Cory Booker and that drug bill when it happened, here's a link. It's a good example of the problem with the Democratic Party right now:

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12/cory-booker-joins-senate-republicans-to-kill-measure-to-import-cheaper-medicine-from-canada/

A possible solution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Democrats

glennmagusharvey · 2017-04-05 21:17:56

KilgoreTrout wrote: »

If you didn't hear about Cory Booker and that drug bill when it happened, here's a link. It's a good example of the problem with the Democratic Party right now:

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12/cory-booker-joins-senate-republicans-to-kill-measure-to-import-cheaper-medicine-from-canada/

A possible solution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Democrats

Wasn't there a related bill that came up that Booker might reverse his position on? I remember hearing something about that but I don't know the details.

glennmagusharvey · 2017-04-06 16:47:17

warning: irony

http://www.wymt.com/content/news/Kentucky-Coal-Mining-Museum-converts-to-solar-power-418430563.html

KilgoreTrout · 2017-04-06 20:45:05

glennmagusharvey wrote: »

KilgoreTrout wrote: »

If you didn't hear about Cory Booker and that drug bill when it happened, here's a link. It's a good example of the problem with the Democratic Party right now:

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12/cory-booker-joins-senate-republicans-to-kill-measure-to-import-cheaper-medicine-from-canada/

A possible solution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Democrats

Wasn't there a related bill that came up that Booker might reverse his position on? I remember hearing something about that but I don't know the details.

Not sure about another bill, but there was a BIG backlash against him after it happened and he backpedaled quickly, as I recall.

But if he's going to now take the position that cheaper meds are good, I would guess it's because he's learned that if he says otherwise it could hurt his electability in the future more than anything else.

This is the exception, though; on a lot of other issues we've had Booker (as well as many others) voting the way their big donors wanted instead of in the interests of their constituents and getting away with it.

I guess some of them see it this way: "We can't win elections without money, we get the most money from corporations, and the only way they keep giving us that money is if we don't hurt their bottom line. So we have to keep them happy, otherwise the Republicans will make more money and curb stomp us."

But Dems, the Republicans DID curb stomp you, and part of the reason why was because you've become Republican-lite. Not Russia, not Jill Stein and/or Gary Johnson, not those darn kids today--the problem is you, Dems, and what you've become.

Right now the Dems' strategy seems to be bashing Trump, but unless they articulate what they're for in addition to what they're against, they're gonna lose again in 2018 and 2020. Of late, people like Tom Perez and Donna Brazile have been vague as hell when asked what their party stands for, what it wants to accomplish in the future beyond beating the Republicans. Bernie Sanders, to his credit, said this when he was asked that question:

"You’re asking a good question, and I can’t give you a definitive answer. Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats."

glennmagusharvey · 2017-04-07 05:15:12

So...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-launches-missiles-syrian-base-after-chemical-weapons-attack-n743636
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKBN1782S0

For reference: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/trump-tweet-syria-obama/

Laugh? Weep? I don't even know anymore.

For what it's worth, early on I favored intervention, though I became less supportive of that idea as the conflict dragged on and got messier. But I'm aware that others here are/have been strongly anti-intervention and I respect that viewpoint even though I disagree.

Meanwhile I also ran into Trump supporters who made a point of how Clinton would get into a war with Russia, which is allied with Syria (or at least, with Assad's government), and how Trump would avoid World War III on that basis and thus be good for world peace.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-un-russia-idUSKBN179039

Edit: Just for more hilarity: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-hillary-clinton-idUSKBN179058

"If it is my fate to die, I must simply laugh." - Magus

From an intellectual perspective, though, I gotta say that issues like these where traditional liberal/conservative battle lines become completely messed up, these issues are really interesting.

glennmagusharvey · 2017-04-07 06:48:14

Perhaps better news: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/6/1650860/-School-vouchers-went-down-to-defeat-in-Texas-GOP-lead-House-big-time-103-44

KilgoreTrout · 2017-04-07 23:28:18

Re. Syria, I finally learned more about it and concluded pretty much "Assad is a terrible person, but regime change hasn't yielded good results since 2001, and the rebels are at least partially ISIS and former Al-Qaeda, who would be bad people to fill the power vacuum."

I've also heard it opined that it seems suspicious why Assad, after he'd all but won the war, would do something like intentionally kill lots of civilians with a chemical attack, because what would be the point? I'm not gonna say that I think accounts of Assad's recent actions are definitely fabricated like the claims of Iraq having WMD, but I won't rule out the possibility either.

If you want Glenn Greenwald's take:

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/07/the-spoils-of-war-trump-lavished-with-media-and-bipartisan-praise-for-bombing-syria/

I think it's crazy that Democrats are praising Trump now, and that starting/getting involved in wars make you popular if you're president. (Or at least so long as no or few Americans get killed, as with Iraq.)

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

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

Comments