US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5508

On October 12 2016 04:11 L_Master wrote:


Can you elaborate a little?

Don't mean this in a disagreeing way, definitely in a I'm curious for some more info way".

On October 12 2016 04:22 KwarK wrote:
I feel like the Christians are having a lot of fun trying to incorporate Trumpianity into their dogma. He's literally everything Jesus was telling people reject. This is a good year.

On October 12 2016 04:14 KwarK wrote:

Productive policy exchanges on local polices? Pence dismissed the idea of any implicit bias, claiming instead that black people have a superpower that gives them immunity from picking up any bias while growing up in a society that has institutional racism. It wasn't much of an exchange.

Sen. Kaine: Here is what I learned as a mayor and governor. The way you make communities safer and the way you make police safer is through community policing. You build the bonds between community and the police force, bonds of understanding — that’s between the community and the police — force bonds of understanding. When that gap narrows, it is safer for communities, and for the police. That model works across our country. There are other models that do not work, and overly aggressive more militarized model. Donald Trump recently said we need to do more stop and frisk around the country. That would be a big mistake because it polarizes the relationship between the police and the community…

Gov. Pence: My uncle was a cop, career cop. On the beat in downtown Chicago. He was my hero when I grew up. My three brothers and I would marvel at my uncle when he would come out in his uniform, sidearm at his side. Police officers are the best of us, men and women, white, African-American, Asian, Latino, Hispanic, they put their lives on the line every single day. Let me say, at the risk of agreeing with you, community policing is a great idea. It has worked in the Hoosier state. We fully support that…

They hear the bad mouthing that comes from people that seize upon tragedy as a reason to use a broad brush to accuse law enforcement of implicit bias or institutional racism. That really has got to stop. When an African-American police officer in Charlotte, an all-star football player who went to Liberty University, followed his dad into law enforcement, joined the force in Charlotte in 2014, was involved in a police action shooting that claimed the life of Keith Lamont Scott, it was a tragedy. We mourn with those who mourn, we grieve with those who grieve, and we are saddened at the loss of life.

Hillary Clinton actually referred to that moment as an example of implicit bias in the police force, when she was asked a week ago, whether there was implicit bias in law enforcement, should correctly answer was that there is implicit bias and everyone in the United States I just think what we ought to do is stop seizing on these moments of tragedy. We assure the public we have a full and complete and transparent investigation whenever there is a loss of life because of police action, but Senator, please, enough of this seeking every opportunity to demean law enforcement by making accusation of implicit bias every time tragedy occurs.

Gov. Pence: I would say that we need to adopt criminal justice reform nationally. I had signed criminal justice reform in the state of Indiana senate, and very proud about it. I worked in Congress on the second chance act. We have got to do a better job recognizing and correcting the errors in the system that do reflect institutional bias in criminal justice.

Kaine: Elaine, people shouldn't be afraid to bring up issues of bias in law enforcement. And if you're afraid to --
Pence: I'm not afraid to bring that up.

On October 12 2016 04:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Yeah the VP debates were worthless really. The Hillary Bernie debates on the other hand were "boring" policy talks, especially compared to the freak show that was the republican debates and that was fantastic IMO.

Hey look, turns out Carson continues to prove he's one of the dumbest humans to ever walk the planet, cool!

On October 12 2016 04:23 Plansix wrote:

When people are disillusioned with the government and system over a long period of time, people look for quick, easy solutions to problems. They desire a “strong leader”, quick action, reprisal and most of all, action. Even if that action isn’t right.

Look at 9/11. After 9/11, everyone was all about whatever we go do to feel safer. Faith in our government was high, public opinion of the president was good. We were all about whatever solutions they had. So they created the patriot act, limited our civil liberties, created special rules for terrorists. We openly talked about torturing people as a solution to getting information we needed to be self. The US, a country that has a basic right that cruel and unusual punishment is not allowed. Ever. But we went along. Even our left wing was on board, with a few exceptions. We backed a war again a nation based on questionable evidence and created a spying program on our own citizens.

Support for all these things is at an all time low now, but at the time we were all about it. Collectively we have forgotten how appealing authoritarian ideas are. We beat those mean Nazis in 1940 and solved that problem, so we never need fear it again. But we forget that we almost feel prey to the exact same things in the 1950s.

Where we changed the pledge of alliance to say “one nation, under God” and required kids to say it in school. Because if we got to them early and often, they wouldn’t become communist. And to this day, we can’t get the pledge of alliance out of our schools or change it back to say “one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

On October 12 2016 03:46 Dromar wrote:
1) Democracy works (in a sense). The republican party has been largely ignoring the people they claim to represent for a long time, saying what they needed to say to get voters, and then doing their own thing in congress. It's become very clear that that's not gonna fly anymore.

On October 12 2016 02:31 Introvert wrote:
You think this is bad? The day he loses will be a sight to behold. Nothing is ever his fault, and his final humiliation will be no different. But in the meantime the whole GOP has to lose for his own ego.

And that's one reason why I don't post much right now. This election cycle is hot garbage, from both candidates, every single day.

On October 12 2016 04:35 Danglars wrote:

Two people from the left talking policy is a different kind of healthy. Moving to someone from the right doesn't mean we've gone from helpful to worthless. Maybe today's charged atmosphere means any fair hearing of both sides is ultimately worthless simply because one side is obviously wrong, full stop?

On October 12 2016 04:32 Danglars wrote:

The talk on community policing was tacit agreement, and both sides were outlined quite effectively. You're just going to see what you want to see. Take two steps back from the partisan divide and racial analysis.




And to your point:


This thread's partisan, maybe hyperpartisan, so you'll likely forever believe the takeaway is Pence is wrong and Kaine is right, and anything that involves Pence being allowed to make the *wrong* argument is an example of a bad exchange. Voters that watched got an idea of the two sides presented in soft voices. They were denied such a hearing in mainstream media and in the presidential debates (tiny bits occurred in the second). If you think productive is too far, call it a healthy discussion. Two sides making their best cases covering a racially and politically charged issue is huge for America, no matter what side you believe.

PENCE: Senator, when African-American police officers involved in a police action shooting involving an African-American, why would Hillary Clinton accuse that African-American police officer of implicit bias?

KAINE: Well, I guess I can't believe you are defending the position that there is no bias and it's a topic we don't even...

claiming instead that black people have a superpower that gives them immunity from picking up any bias while growing up in a society that has institutional racism.

Hillary Clinton's campaign is confronting an emerging risk to her presidential ambitions - if Donald Trump continues to trail her in opinion polls many Democrats may simply stay at home on Election Day.

Without enough popular support, Clinton would enter the White House lacking the political capital she would need to drive through her agenda. In the worst-case scenario it could cost her the presidency if Republicans turn out in big numbers on Nov. 8.

Clinton, the Democratic nominee, has spent much of her campaign sounding the alarm over the prospect of a President Trump. She has struggled to lay out a compelling vision for her presidency and has failed to excite key constituencies, including millennials, minority voters and liberal Democrats.

Opinion polls show that many voters are backing Clinton primarily to stop Trump, the Republican nominee, from getting into the White House. If they believe he has no hope of winning, then what would their motivation be to turn up at the polls?

In a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll about half of all Clinton supporters said they were backing her to keep Trump from winning. By contrast, just 36.5 percent said it was because of Clinton’s policies and just 12.6 percent said it was because they like her personally.

“Turnout is correlated with levels of competition,” said Michael McDonald, an elections expert at the University of Florida. “The higher the competition, the higher the turnout.”

The young Americans, blacks, Latinos, and low-income voters who make up much of the Democratic base often need to feel motivated by a particular candidate or issue to turn out, McDonald said, as was the case with President Barack Obama’s candidacy in 2008.

Clinton’s campaign has long worried about voter complacency and has at every turn pushed the notion that the race is close and that Trump is unfit to be president. With her lead growing, that task grows more difficult.

A Reuters/Ipsos 50-state survey (carried out before Friday's release of a video tape in which Trump makes vulgar remarks about women) gave the Democratic nominee a 95 percent chance of winning the election. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll on Monday showed Clinton with an 11-point lead nationally over Trump.

Low Democratic voter turnout could leave Trump an opening in swing states. And should Clinton win the election, a slim margin of victory could compound the challenge she will face in trying to govern a deeply divided nation.

[...]

On October 12 2016 04:35 Danglars wrote:

Two people from the left talking policy is a different kind of healthy. Moving to someone from the right doesn't mean we've gone from helpful to worthless. Maybe today's charged atmosphere means any fair hearing of both sides is ultimately worthless simply because one side is obviously wrong, full stop?

On October 12 2016 04:44 KwarK wrote:

Outside of the American political system it was two people, one from the left, one from the right. The center of mass shifts, you can have a left and a right between Clinton and Bernie, as you ought to know. Right and left will always exist between any two people, suggesting that an elimination of the right is being called for is absurd. Trump is to the left of a great many people, to the right of many more. It's all relative. The philosophical contest between left and right does not need a Republican party to continue.