US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5740

On October 23 2016 08:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
On that topic here's Oprah "You don't have to like Clinton to vote for her".Desperation much?

http://theweek.com/speedreads/656889/oprah-reminds-people-dont-have-like-clinton-vote-not-coming-over-house

[An award-winning porn star accused a creepy Donald Trump of offering $10,000 and the use of his private jet if she agreed to spend the night with him.

Jessica Drake said the GOP presidential hopeful’s unwanted sexual come-ons occurred 10 years ago during a golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, Calif.

When she rebuffed Trump’s sexual overtures, Drake told a news conference Saturday, he asked her two questions: “What do you want? How much?”
“I received another call from Donald or a male calling on his behalf offering me $10,000,” she said. “I declined once again, and once more gave as an excuse that I had to return to Los Angeles for work.


I was then told Mr. Trump would allow me the use of his private jet to take me home if I accepted his invitation.”

Her allegation follows the claims of 11 other women who accused Trump of groping them. The boorish billionaire vowed Saturday to sue them all once the presidential race is done.

The most recent woman to charge Trump was wellness expert Karena Virginia, who accused him of brazenly touching her breast outside the U.S. Open in 1998.

“Don’t you know who I am?” he asked while slipping away.

Drake said Trump started hitting on her as soon as they met — although he was married at the time to third wife Melania.

“His words and actions are a huge testament to his character — that of uncontrollable misogyny, entitlement and being a sexual assault apologist,” said Drake.

On October 23 2016 07:36 Mohdoo wrote:



Where are you seeing these blowout numbers?

On October 23 2016 08:52 BallinWitStalin wrote:


So you trust the 538 assessment of +2 for Trump bias in the LA times poll, yet you distrust the assessment that Clinton is far more likely to win the election than Trump according to an aggregation of all the polls (i.e. Trump followers should be the ones experiencing some desperation, not Clinton voters)?

That's some solid cognitive dissonance right there.

On October 23 2016 11:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

Distrust? What I've been saying is i'm not seeing the enthusiasm for Clinton that was seen with Obama.Don't expect high democrat turnout on polling day.

Last Brexit poll the day before the vote had remain up ten 55-45, leave won by two.Why? Low voter turnout among youth, the ones most heavily favouring remain!

On October 23 2016 11:50 Falling wrote:
Congressional term limits seems a bad idea to me. It fixes with the effect without ever dealing with the cause: why is it that congressional and senatorial elections are largely uncompetitive. Why is it that you cannot throw the bums out and have regional third parties sweeping in like we have up here. In a competitive electoral system, you absolutely don't want a term limit on your old timers- they lasted for so long for a reason and you want their experience- particularly if one party has been out of power for so long, having a bunch of old timers to train and mentor the newbs seems like an invaluable asset.

I would certainly look at reforming either how electoral boundaries are drawn or else the electoral systems itself (alternatives to FPTP) long before I would consider term limits.

On October 23 2016 11:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

Distrust? What I've been saying is i'm not seeing the enthusiasm for Clinton that was seen with Obama.Don't expect high democrat turnout on polling day.

Last Brexit poll the day before the vote had remain up ten 55-45, leave won by two.Why? Low voter turnout among youth, the ones most heavily favouring remain!

On October 23 2016 12:06 Plansix wrote:
https://twitter.com/maxtemkin/status/790024608233684992

They were off by one year. I await my hover board.

On October 23 2016 11:50 Falling wrote:
Congressional term limits seems a bad idea to me. It tries to fix the effect without ever dealing with the cause: why is it that congressional and senatorial elections are largely uncompetitive. Why is it that you cannot throw the bums out and have regional third parties sweeping in like we have up here. In a competitive electoral system, you absolutely don't want a term limit on your old timers- they lasted for so long for a reason and you want their experience- particularly if one party has been out of power for so long, having a bunch of old timers to train and mentor the newbs seems like an invaluable asset.

I would certainly look at reforming either how electoral boundaries are drawn or else the electoral systems itself (alternatives to FPTP) long before I would consider term limits.

On October 23 2016 12:47 Probe1 wrote:

The polite term is gerrymandering. The US House of Representatives has been in Republican control despite the majority of votes going to Democratic candidates for over a decade.

The lines are drawn to make sure that doesn't happen. It's pretty sick.

On October 19 2016 08:57 Lord Tolkien wrote:

Since we're going to have a discussion about it, (Congressional) term limits are bad for what you think they'll do. The argument for term limits is the same wide-eyed idealistic notions behind the ban on "pork barrel" spending or government transparency.

1) The notion that politicians not caring about re-election is good is somewhat concerning, since you're asking to put politicians out of public accountability. This actually hurts your notion of politicians seeking re-election regardless of the good of the people, since accountability is one way to keep politicians aware of the good of the people.

2) What's more, politicians who serve long term aren't usually doing it out of personal gain. If you cared about self-enrichment, you'd serve a few short terms, make a great deal of noise/cultivate name recognition, and then hop into the private sector and reap much higher salaries/perks than you ever would working in public service.

3) You're idealizing freshmen politicians and legislators as some miraculous cure-all to cut down on politicians seeking re-election, but that's ridiculous. Politicians are still going to seek re-election, they're still just as likely to ignore the good of the people (actually more), by seeking other offices.

3) This puts power in the hands of unelected officials: the bureaucracy, consultants, and lobbying groups in politics, not necessarily just on government staffers. While certainly, the aforementioned groups invest in cultivating long-term relationships with legislators, that's because the power dynamic shifts in favor of legislators in those relationships. The power imbalance between lobbyists and freshmen Congressmen is lopsided as the latter has little connections or policy experience or familiarity with political structures. Congress would thus have significantly less clout and ability to determine independent policies. And it's not as if freshmen legislators will have an easier time of it: the nature of politics makes it extremely difficult for new politicians to start gaining traction.

4) You're tilting the legislative body away from policy makers and towards ideologues; statistically, policy-minded/wonkish legislators are less likely to pass on re-election than ones there to champion one issue or some ideological platform, so you're in essence cutting down on Congressmen who know how to compromise and make policy for Congressmen who will grandstand in order to garner electoral votes. Which, I suppose is great if you like gridlock, but for effective governance it's a terrible idea. "Policy focused" legislators tend to have longer terms than more "ideologically-minded" legislators, so less of the former and more of the latter.

5) You're just cutting down on effective governance. Congressional politics have always relied on a seniority system to organize and manage the constant influx of proposals and bills across a myriad of topics. Remove seniority from the equation and you cut down on the ability of parties and government to function. See: the Tea Party (are the most vocal advocates of term limits). Freshmen Congressmen there for ideological reasons are perfectly happy to defy party and government structures in order to generate publicity back home in order to get re-elected, and is indeed how you get noticed as a fresh-faced congressmen, now that there's a ban on pork.


But I stand to benefit if you pass them so...go ahead.


Also follow up post to LL tomorrow.