US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4929

The House Freedom Caucus is eyeing its biggest power play since it pushed out John Boehner as speaker last year.

Members of the group of far-right agitators are considering a plan to run one of their own as a candidate for the Republican Study Committee chairmanship this fall in a bid to push the conservative group further to the right.

Seizing control of the RSC would be the latest show of clout for the group of about 40 conservatives, which in its mere two-year existence has upended the House Republican Conference and infuriated GOP leaders with its no-holds-barred legislative tactics.

Several caucus members in recent days have threatened to leave the RSC, criticizing the group as a puppet of House Republican leadership that no longer stands for conservative values. The RSC, now comprised of nearly 180 members, had long been regarded as the leading group in the House for staunch conservatives.

Freedom Caucus insiders say the group hasn’t committed to backing a specific candidate, and they could still decide to abandon the RSC in a mass exodus. But at least two caucus members, Reps. Andy Harris of Maryland and Trent Franks of Arizona, have expressed interest in running for the post.

“Do we restore the RSC into a conservative wing of the conference that forges policy? Or do we just give up on RSC?” said Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), arguing that the study committee has “changed over the last couple terms to be much less independent and more under leadership’s guidance.”

Asked how the Freedom Caucus would “restore” the RSC, he mused: “If we were to get someone on the Freedom Caucus in leadership.”

Clinching that post would likely be the group’s biggest achievement since it drove Boehner to resign from Congress in October.

On September 05 2016 07:50 LegalLord wrote:

That's sort of what a lot of people have been saying. But I really don't think this election is really one in which there is a good chance of meaningful change, so it's probably best just to wait a while longer. Both parties chose to act like inflexible goons and now we're stuck with two candidates that very few people actually like.

On September 08 2016 05:51 Yurie wrote:


WMDs is probably the largest reason but the other weapons just below that tier is also a big reason. Any offensive war is horribly expensive in equipment and lives.

On September 08 2016 12:03 IgnE wrote:
Whence also Trump and the aesthetics of the cult. As Benjamin says, "All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war." Trump isn't alone of course. The leftist consensus indulges in the same aesthetics, for, "Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today's technical resources while maintaining the property system." But those who subscribe to Trumpism seem to me to be totally in thrall to Trump's aesthetic mastery. Electing Trump is to enshrine this aesthetics, and to take literally the phrase, "Fiat ars–pereat mundus," which Trump should have emblazoned on all of his buildings. Just as modern media art forms like reality tv make every audience member a critic by virtue of being expert on "living" per se, it makes Trump the iconic modern artist, making art for art's sake. Those are his credentials for the highest office in the land: an expert on the one-dimensional, monomaniacal, self-delusional, peculiarly American form of "living", or of self-extension.

On September 08 2016 13:31 xDaunt wrote:


The underlined above strikes me as being rather harsh. And it's not like Trump would be the first president that we've had who took advantage of a tremendous cult of personality. Both Roosevelts, Kennedy, Reagan, and Obama all fit the bill in the modern era. And in the cases of Kennedy and Obama, very strong arguments can be made that they lacked any sort of real "credentials" to be president at the time of their respective elections.

Edit: And the other thing that bears mentioning is that Trump isn't unique among the previously mentioned presidents in his use of cutting edge media manipulation to boost his popularity.

On September 08 2016 11:58 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I totally get that people throw around terms like racist, sexist, socialist, etc way too freely now days. People are way too eager to literally destroy someones fucking life over any perceived infraction. Its the power of the internet, humans never evolved to have the kind of power they do. We're social creatures that function best in small tribes, but now with twitter instead of having a small village you've got the entire planet. That means instead of just your little tribe knowing Tim is a drunk you can nuke Tim from orbit. Your mob isn't 30 people anymore its 30 million. Its power beyond measure and people use it foolishly to shame and brigade people, try and destroy their lives and livelihoods. Like every huge discovery the internet has the power of taking us to new heights we never could have dreamed of and also destroy us. Don't bullshit yourself into thinking both sides don't do the same petty crap either. You point your finger and scream "PC culture" but your side cries like babies over just as much if not more inane childish crap if they don't get their way exactly. Call a spade a spade man, even if its on your team. (And I will give you props on the Kaepernick thing but its so much more than that).

So yeah I think people are too trigger happy these days. However there's a few things I think need to be sorted out. On people calling something out as racist. If you say something silly and someone says "dude that's racist" that doesn't mean you're a card carrying Klan member with a meeting tonight. Being racist is obviously a serious thing, but if you get called out on something it doesn't mean you're David Duke. It just means you said or did something stupid so check yourself and think before you speak/act. Too many people just shut down completely when someone is essentially telling them "don't be stupid" and they take it as that person thinking they're the head of the Hitler Youth or something. People are human, people think and do stupid stuff including racist stuff. Things are on a bell curve so chill.

Anyways on Trump. I have to assume you know that most people think he's got a sign that follows him around that says "RACIST" in giant gold letters just like his hotel right? He kicked off his campaign for president with the Mexicans are rapists thing, right out of the gate that's where he was so most people think he's a racist dick. This shouldn't come as a shock by this point. Whether YOU think he's racist or not doesn't matter, the world sees him as that and perception is reality. Ok, so everyone thinks he's racist and most people don't want to be considered racists, don't want to associate with them or hitch their wagons to one. So when someone sees you hitching your wagon to someone they think has that giant RACIST sign floating above them what do you think they're going to assume?

Even if Trump had a policy of a free unicorn for every American and you were just voting for him for the sweet unicorn policy people would see the racist sign. "Bro, I just want that unicorn!" You could say and people would see it as you being willing to sell out minorities for a pony with a horn. Its honestly that simple. But you just want X policy...except he's a racist. Well I like Y idea....except he's a racist. He doesn't get to undo all the messed up stuff he's said and done. People will see him as a racist till the day he dies (and beyond) so yeah if you support him people are going to think you're a racist. The alternative is you're willing to sell races out for some policy of his, which lets be real, isn't a whole lot better. Like I said maybe you don't actually think he's racist but surely you can see where people are naturally going to draw that line.

Lets be real here, no one on campus wants to hear what you think about anything, politics included. No one wants to hear what tumblr chick on campus thinks about anything either, right? So its best to just keep it to yourself. Like honestly there's a less than 0% chance of having a meaningful debate of ideas with tumblr chick so why bother? Most people are idiots, you're not going to have a well reasoned argument where both parties walk away smarter and happier with most people right? That's why you don't talk about politics or religion with people because nothing good is going to come of it. You're going to trigger the other person and the other person is going to trigger you and you're both going to walk away pissed thinking the other person is a god damn retard and boy aren't you glad you just had to bring up your political opinion like it was actually going to change anyone's mind? It never was, which is why people keep it to themselves.

There's like 3 people on earth I'm confident I can argue the topics of politics or religion with and it go anywhere useful. None of those 3 people are randoms on a college campus so I don't seek to talk to randoms on a college campus about those things. Some subjects are way too delicate, most people are stupid, and like I said people are way too trigger happy putting someone on blast on the internet so why even open pandora's box? Those 3 people are 3 of my oldest friends which means their opinion isn't worthless to me. They're also all rational thinkers and level headed, not emotion driven. I'm turbo liberal and atheist, 2 of them are christian and conservative so its not like we agree on everything or they're yes men. If you want to have discussions about the complex issues of our times talk to those types of people, strangers on a campus are useless! I didn't even know SJW tumblr chick existed until 30 seconds ago. I'm going to choose to remain happy and sane today and walk away and go about my life pretending she doesn't exist some more. Her existence, her life, her ideas mean nothing to me. Don't give her the attention, don't give her the audience, certainly don't engage in a discussion where there are no winners.

Hawaiian seafood caught by foreign crews confined on boats

Hundreds of undocumented men are employed in this unique U.S. fishing fleet, due to a federal loophole that allows them to work but exempts them from most basic labor protections. Many come from impoverished Southeast Asian and Pacific nations to take the dangerous jobs, which can pay as little as 70 cents an hour.

With no legal standing on U.S. soil, the men are at the mercy of their American captains on American-flagged, American-owned vessels, catching prized swordfish and ahi tuna. Since they don't have visas, they are not allowed to set foot on shore. The entire system, which contradicts other state and federal laws, operates with the blessing of high-ranking U.S. lawmakers and officials, an Associated Press investigation found.

Over six months, the AP obtained confidential contracts, reviewed dozens of business records and interviewed boat owners, brokers and more than 50 fishermen in Hawaii, Indonesia and San Francisco. The investigation found men living in squalor on some boats, forced to use buckets instead of toilets, suffering running sores from bed bugs and sometimes lacking sufficient food. It also revealed instances of human trafficking.

In Hawaii, federal contractors paid to monitor catches said they are troubled by what they've seen while living weeks at a time at sea with the men.

"You get that sort of feeling that it's like gaming the system," said Forest O'Neill, who coordinates the boat observers in Honolulu. "It's a shock. It becomes normal, but it's like, 'How is this even legal? How is this possible?' ... They are like floating prisons."

Under the law, U.S. citizens must make up 75 percent of the crew on most commercial fishing vessels in America. But influential lawmakers, including the late Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye, pushed for a loophole to support one of the state's biggest industries. It exempted commercial fishing boat owners from federal rules enforced almost everywhere else.

Thus about 700 foreign workers in Hawaii, who catch $110 million worth of seafood annually, lack certain labor rights most Americans take for granted. They have little legal recourse in these areas, and are detained on boats where U.S. Customs and Border Protection requires captains to hold the men's passports. That potentially goes against federal human trafficking laws saying bosses who possess workers' identification documents can face up to five years in prison.

U.S. Attorney Florence Nakakuni, the chief federal law enforcement official in Hawaii, said it's all above board.

"People say ... they're like captives," she said. "But they don't have visas, so they can't leave their boat, really."

One fisherman, sheltering on a boat with his buddies during a rainstorm, said the short down time they get while docked is a welcome break from the nonstop hustle at sea.

"Sometimes you don't even have time to drink water," he said.

At the piers, some vessels are tidy, neatly packed with coiled ropes, scrubbed rails and clean decks. Others have piles of garbage, rusting tanks and rotting carpets. On some boats, crews defecate in buckets or plastic bags, or even hang over the side of the ship to do their business.

"It's unhealthy, quite frankly, for people to have to be kept on the boat," said Kitty Simonds, executive director of the Honolulu-based Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. "Maybe there needs to be legislation. I mean, who's going to take that on?"

Even in the best conditions, lives are at risk.

Trucks loaded down with seafood from the sale fan out all over the island. At that point, the connection between the workers and their catch is lost.

"The fishermen aren't Hawaiian?" asked Michael Pollan, a bestselling author on food and agriculture who advocates for workers' rights. He likened the foreign fishermen's "second-class" status in the U.S. to that of farmworkers in years past working without labor protections.

"Food produced for us in conditions approaching slavery is certainly not morally sustainable," he said.

On September 08 2016 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:


I love that while people (including police) are having a conniption fit over Kaepernick, there's some heavy overlap with the people whining about how hard it is for Trump supporters to freely express themselves.

On September 08 2016 11:58 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Anyways on Trump. I have to assume you know that most people think he's got a sign that follows him around that says "RACIST" in giant gold letters just like his hotel right? He kicked off his campaign for president with the Mexicans are rapists thing, right out of the gate that's where he was so most people think he's a racist dick. This shouldn't come as a shock by this point. Whether YOU think he's racist or not doesn't matter, the world sees him as that and perception is reality. Ok, so everyone thinks he's racist and most people don't want to be considered racists, don't want to associate with them or hitch their wagons to one. So when someone sees you hitching your wagon to someone they think has that giant RACIST sign floating above them what do you think they're going to assume?

On September 08 2016 21:22 farvacola wrote:
lol, Libertarian Foreign Policy at its finest.