US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5753

On October 25 2016 03:50 KwarK wrote:
In the North of England they set up economic development zones with tax breaks and grants for companies that built plants in old coal areas etc. It can be done if the political will is there. Not that it was done well, there were still a lot of problems, but there is a template for a transition from heavy industry.

On October 25 2016 01:37 ticklishmusic wrote:
it just boggles my mind that campaigns would lie to themselves w/r/t to polls either internal or external - especially internal or that others would consider it something they would do. a campaign should be making its decisions based on polling data like "oh we're within x points in this area, maybe we could put 200k in ads and overallocate calls to them for a couple weeks to see if we can flip it". deliberately deceiving themselves makes it impossible to do any sort of proper targeting. there is no incentive for it, except for a short term ability to stick your head in the sand.

the romney campaign tried unskewing the polls and they were wrong. however, their mistrust was based on some actual analysis. the trump campaign just... makes stuff up.

Jill Harth, the first woman to publicly accuse Donald Trump of sexual misconduct, has threatened to countersue the Republican nominee for president, if he carries out the promise to sue his accusers he outlined in Gettysburg on Saturday.

“If he sues me, I know that truth is an absolute defense, and I will countersue for the emotional hurt and lost income his attacks have caused me,” Harth said in a statement on Monday afternoon.

Harth, who settled a 1997 sexual harassment lawsuit against Trump, initially stayed quiet as the businessman’s run for the White House gathered speed this year. She was inspired to speak to the Guardian in July, after Trump said she and other women were liars, when their stories were shared as part of a New York Times investigation.

“I’m not going to get an apology from him,” Harth told the Guardian. “But he really should have been taught, if you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say anything, OK? Don’t call me a liar.”

On Saturday in Gettysburg, Trump opened what was billed as a major policy address by saying he would sue all the women who have accused him of inappropriate sexual conduct. He has denied all such allegations.

His accusers, he said, had told “fabricated stories” that were part of a massive conspiracy perpetrated against him by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the media.

“Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign, total fabrication,” he said, speaking hours before an 11th accuser, Jessica Drake, came forward at a press event in Los Angeles.

Trump also said “the events never happened” and added: “All of these liars will be sued after the election is over.”

Trump has threatened to sue over allegations of sexual misbehavior, most recently the New York Times. The Times general counsel replied in a letter earlier this month, explaining the paper would not retract its report.

“Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself,” wrote Times general counsel David McCraw.

Trump’s wife threatened to sue People magazine for publishing the story of an alleged assault of its writer Natasha Stoynoff, an allegation that Donald Trump has denied.

On October 25 2016 04:21 plasmidghost wrote:
Off to vote in a few minutes, shame I live in Texas and it's gonna most likely go Trump so whomever I vote for doesn't matter unless I vote for Johnson to try to get the Libertarians federal funding

On October 25 2016 03:02 LegalLord wrote:
Rebuilding a new economy that is more robust for the future is much, much harder than dragging your feet on an old system and pretending the "clean coal" unicorn exists. You have to find a lot of investment, get people to accept that they will lose their jobs and possibly get worse ones, and in the case of coal, you also have to put a lot of effort into actually closing the mines (a mine that is neither operational nor properly sealed is going to be an environmental catastrophe shortly). Tough stuff and it always takes one eternity to make the transition.

On October 25 2016 04:21 plasmidghost wrote:
Off to vote in a few minutes, shame I live in Texas and it's gonna most likely go Trump so whomever I vote for doesn't matter unless I vote for Johnson to try to get the Libertarians federal funding

On October 25 2016 04:26 Nevuk wrote:

Trump isn't up very much in the polls in Texas

On October 25 2016 03:02 LegalLord wrote:
Rebuilding a new economy that is more robust for the future is much, much harder than dragging your feet on an old system and pretending the "clean coal" unicorn exists. You have to find a lot of investment, get people to accept that they will lose their jobs and possibly get worse ones, and in the case of coal, you also have to put a lot of effort into actually closing the mines (a mine that is neither operational nor properly sealed is going to be an environmental catastrophe shortly). Tough stuff and it always takes one eternity to make the transition.

On October 25 2016 04:39 plasmidghost wrote:

I like the libertarian approach to government but the problem is that their economic policies would cause massive abuse of the working class by corporations. However, if a third voice starts to rise in the country, I think it will be a net positive for the future, even if I disagree with it

BURLINGTON, Vt. — Sen. Bernie Sanders, a loyal soldier for Hillary Clinton since he conceded the Democratic presidential nomination in July, plans to push liberal legislation with like-minded senators with or without Clinton’s support if she is elected — and to aggressively oppose appointments that do not pass muster with the party’s left wing.

In an interview, Sanders said he and other senators have started plotting legislation that would achieve many of the proposals that fueled his insurgent run for president, including a $15 federal minimum wage, tuition-free public college, an end to “mass incarceration” and aggressive steps to fight climate change.

The senators, Sanders said, also plan to push for the breakup of “too big to fail” banks and to pressure Clinton to appoint liberals to key Cabinet positions, including Treasury secretary. Sanders said he would not stay silent if Clinton nominated the “same old, same old Wall Street guys” to regulatory positions that are important in enacting and overseeing the financial reforms he supports.

“I will be vigorously in opposition, and I will make that very clear,” Sanders said.

Sanders’s comments signal that, if she wins the presidency Nov. 8, Clinton may have to contend not only with Republicans who oppose her agenda but also with liberals in her own party who were not excited by her campaign and have long feared that she plans to govern as a centrist.

It remains to be seen how much sway Sanders will have in January, but he is in line to take over the chairmanship of one of the Senate’s major committees if Democrats regain control of the chamber. Aides to some of the senators he said are working with him suggested that less of a coordinated effort is underway.

The proposals Sanders plans to push are contained within the Democratic Party’s 51-page platform, a document that he and his allies were instrumental in drafting in the run-up to the party’s convention in Philadelphia in July. Although in the past the party platform has often been quickly forgotten, Sanders’s role in shaping it was key to his decision to support Clinton, and he has long planned to pressure her to follow through with action in the White House.

Progressive groups have questioned whether Clinton will fully embrace such initiatives as president and where they might fall on her priority list, particularly as she faces a divided Congress and makes outreach to Republicans a focus of her campaign. Clinton did not embrace some of the policies contained in the party platform as a candidate in the primary cycle, but she has since signaled her support.

Sanders said he considers it his job “to demand that the Democratic Party implement that platform.”

The iconoclastic senator from Vermont, whose long-shot presidential campaign turned him into a national celebrity, shared his plans Friday during a candid and lengthy interview in his home town.

In recent weeks, Sanders has stumped for Clinton, traveling the country to rally skeptical progressives and others around her bid to defeat Republican nominee Donald Trump. But during the conversation in his office here, it became clear that Sanders is ready to reassert himself within the Democratic Party.

On October 25 2016 04:41 zlefin wrote:
logo ->
never heard of him; I don't see a tax proposal in text form; and I don't wanna watch the video to see what's in it.
If he seems somewhat reasonable it might be because he hasn't had that much scrutiny, or like, none at all. It's easy to look good when noone's going after you.
If you can link to the text of some of his proposals I'll take a look.

The animating principle behind Kotlikoff’s campaign is simple: Today’s Americans are running up a huge bill — both literal and figurative — and leaving the next generation to pay it. On fiscal policy, Kotlikoff thinks that official government budget estimates vastly understate the future cost of Social Security, Medicare and other programs. On foreign relations, Kotlikoff argues that by letting North Korea develop nuclear weapons, the U.S. is leaving a far less secure world for future generations. And on climate change, Kotlikoff believes not only that the U.S. is failing to take the threat seriously, but also that many well-intentioned policies are making the problem worse.

“We’re not disclosing honestly the burdens that we’re leaving for our kids,” Kotlikoff said. “I don’t think we can just leave our kids at risk.”

Kotlikoff is known among economists for what is called “generational accounting,” which is the idea that the government should evaluate policies based on how they will affect spending and revenue far into the future — much further than the 10-year budget window that is standard now. For example, the government has promised to pay Social Security benefits for Americans working today; paying those benefits will fall to the next generation of Americans, yet that obligation doesn’t show up on the government’s balance sheet. Kotlikoff estimates that if we account for the full cost of all the government’s long-term obligations, projected out into the distant future, the true “fiscal gap” between what we owe and what we collect in tax revenue is about $200 trillion, more than 15 times the official national debt.