US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1321

On April 13 2019 23:56 Danglars wrote:

That’s your perspective and I think you need to step back and examine it from other ones. Politics is full of mixed bag politicians that do a lot for their constituents, while pursuing and expanding their power. From yours, a lot of “but he lies/no part of it is fairly considered pushing back against false narratives.” From the right, part of it is “he isn’t speaking to your experience.” You’ve never been called deplorable, clinging to guns and religion, or called racist when you wanted America to control America’s immigration policy.

Furthermore, you can’t even advance to the real question because you have problems with the foundations. How else will you get the message out that right-of-center immigration policy and America-first foreign policy are things you support, but nobody fights for them? Nobody even looks at the record of the party WHEN ASKED to look at it. The easiest point to make is politicians for multiple decades promised in campaign platforms or speeches to move the embassy to Jerusalem, and Trump did it. He pushed back on the narrative that it would incite imminent violence and won (more paper tigers).

You may not accept the “good” in his actions because it’s surrounded by so much “bad,” but maybe in time you’ll see the point to it all. It sure as hell beats the racism and deception narrative for why he was elected and why he enjoys a base of support today.

On April 14 2019 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:


The point is that 3 years of CONSTANT focus on Trump and negative stories daily (you literally can't go a page even here without Trump and his supporters being beclowned) has done nothing to hurt his favorables.

Mueller was the big finish and it flopped. I know some people are keeping up hope as long as they can, but spending the next year like the last 3 is the surest way to lose 2020 and that's what this is really about.

On April 14 2019 01:32 IgnE wrote:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-indictment-of-julian-assange-is-a-threat-to-journalism

Oh look Plansix, someone in the New Yorker makes a strong case that the indictment of Assange is a threat to "legitimate journalistic practices":



My personal view is that Assange might have gone nutty, and might have been one of several reasons that overdetermined the 2016 election in favor of Trump, and might be a bit egotistical, and might be a bit personally offensive, but it's not like you can't find some or all of those traits in other "journalists." Whether or not you are committed to calling Assange a journalist, he clearly cherished freedom of the press and government accountability.

On April 14 2019 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:


The point is that 3 years of CONSTANT focus on Trump and negative stories daily (you literally can't go a page even here without Trump and his supporters being beclowned) has done nothing to hurt his favorables.

Mueller was the big finish and it flopped. I know some people are keeping up hope as long as they can, but spending the next year like the last 3 is the surest way to lose 2020 and that's what this is really about.

Patten pleaded guilty last August to one count of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) by failing to publicly disclose his lobbying on behalf of a Ukrainian political party over a four-year period. Patten was employed by the Opposition Bloc, a pro-Russia political party that succeeded former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s Party of Regions, and his work included meeting with members of Congress and U.S. officials and placing op-eds in U.S. news outlets.

Patten’s case has attracted attention because of its connection to Mueller’s investigation. Mueller handed off his case to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., but Patten as part of his plea deal cooperated with the special counsel as well as other federal prosecutors.

In a filing earlier this week, attorneys for the government argued that Patten deserved leniency, citing his “substantial assistance” in the Mueller investigation as well as other criminal probes that were not described, though they did not make a specific sentencing

At the time of his plea, Patten also admitted to using an American citizen as a “straw purchaser” to obtain tickets to President Trump’s inauguration for a prominent Ukrainian oligarch, who is not named in court filings but believed to be Serhiy Lyovochkin. Patten also admitted to withholding documents from and giving false testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in the course of its Russian interference investigation. Patten was not charged with any crimes as a result of those admissions.

“Due to his prior work and experience as a political consultant overseas, Patten has served as a valuable resource for the government in a number of other criminal investigations, providing helpful information about additional individuals and entities,” prosecutors wrote in the memo, noting he has met or spoke with government investigators nine times.

On April 14 2019 02:44 Wombat_NI wrote:

100%, it seems so blatantly obvious that I genuinely don't understand why they continue to do it. Perhaps I should pursue a career in politics if an extremely well-funded party with plenty of researchers can continue to make the same really obvious strategical mistakes.

On April 14 2019 02:56 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:

Even if the full report turns up nothing significant, which I doubt given how hard they are working now to deny it's existence in the public eye all of a sudden, there's still the huge financial shit Trump is in, with his foundation, taxes, fraudulent bank loan applications etc.

Mueller deferred a lot of things to other prosecutors. Yesterday a lobbyist, who worked with Klimnik and Manafort was sentenced to 3 years probation for funneling foreign money into Trumps inauguration. He got of easy because of extensive cooperation. Now maybe this is another white collar crime easy sentence but I'd think that him getting only probation would mean the information he provided was very valuable and we will see more on the inauguration funds.

So many people got easier sentences due to cooperation. Maybe everyone gets off easy by ratting on eachother, and form a circle of reduced sentences that way, but there has to be something that is worked towards right?



https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/438615-manafort-associate-sentenced-to-three-years-probation-no-prison-time

I do agree whatever happens will not really hurt Trump's electability since he's immune to bad press now with his base. But the 2020 campaign shouldn't be won on anti-Trump anyway. Just present better plans than him which is not very hard. And don't choose fucking Biden.

But the 2020 campaign shouldn't be won on anti-Trump anyway. Just present better plans than him which is not very hard. And don't choose fucking Biden.

On April 14 2019 02:56 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:

Even if the full report turns up nothing significant, which I doubt given how hard they are working now to deny it's existence in the public eye all of a sudden, there's still the huge financial shit Trump is in, with his foundation, taxes, fraudulent bank loan applications etc.

Mueller deferred a lot of things to other prosecutors. Yesterday a lobbyist, who worked with Klimnik and Manafort was sentenced to 3 years probation for funneling foreign money into Trumps inauguration. He got of easy because of extensive cooperation. Now maybe this is another white collar crime easy sentence but I'd think that him getting only probation would mean the information he provided was very valuable and we will see more on the inauguration funds.

So many people got easier sentences due to cooperation. Maybe everyone gets off easy by ratting on eachother, and form a circle of reduced sentences that way, but there has to be something that is worked towards right?



https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/438615-manafort-associate-sentenced-to-three-years-probation-no-prison-time

I do agree whatever happens will not really hurt Trump's electability since he's immune to bad press now with his base. But the 2020 campaign shouldn't be won on anti-Trump anyway. Just present better plans than him which is not very hard. And don't choose fucking Biden.

On April 14 2019 02:58 GreenHorizons wrote:


My opinion is that it's not so much a mistake as an unfortunate necessity. They have anti-trump, shallow identity politics, and "reforming capitalism, police, politics, etc..." as critiques of the system. They can't substantively critique the system and the process itself. When they do it exposes that it's something Democratic leadership supports itself.

Israel, private insurers, Syria, Military budgets, "tough on crime", "border security", on and on. When you scratch beneath the surface of stuff beyond gay wedding cakes, officer cams, and the political theater I find that on the big issues, they are often more aligned than not.

That when you really talk about the drivers of inequality, climate change, and oppression in general you find both political parties on the same side, against the people.

On April 14 2019 02:38 Wombat_NI wrote:

I actually largely agree with you though, although I've been called much worse than deplorable for the record. The thing is, it's Trump, whose platform I largely disagree with, although I thought there might be some unintentional side benefits if he did get in.

Way I see it establishment political orthodoxy thrives on a lack of ambition, or that x thing isn't viable to do and people get worn down and thus that becomes the reality. If you do break through that glass ceiling, or capture lightning in a bottle as Trump did, you absolutely have to nail it, because your shtick of being anti-establishment, if you fail will be the rationale to return back to establishment norms.

I don't have much skin in the game, not much I particularly support about his platform. Trump's brand is both his (or yours) Achilles heel if he done goofs. Want to discuss Wikileaks and what they do, indepdent of Julian Assange? Good luck with some people, because to many Julian Assange is Wikileaks (which is his fault), so hence his own foibles subsequently are a stick to beat the entire organisation with.

Which IMO will come to bite people in the ass, and actually the people who care about these issues because of Trump's flaws, who IMO doesn't even particularly care about any of them. We shall have to say how it plays out, I think people who may have voted for him, but aren't part of his loyal base, by and large can see through his bullshit more and more and that'll play out down the line.

This does work both ways though, many positions considered of the left poll better as single issues than a lot of Trump's basic platform does and hit the exact same kind of roadblocks.

It's largely why I'm critical of Corbyn a lot over in the UK and annoy my leftie friends, because I don't think his platform matters at all if he doesn't get elected, so get elected. Re-nationalising elements of our public infrastructure like rail has been in the 'impossible to do' column for decades, I think that will be exposed as absolutely wrong to those who aren't already left wing if we actually do it and it works, but if we don't seize the appetite for it and actually do it while there's a bit of a surge of popularity for traditional left wing things, then it'll be shoved back into the 'impossible can't do it' box if we return to more of a business as normal climate.

I don't particularly value loyalty all that much over pragmatism, my loyalty is to what I want done in a policy sense. I'm happy to say, not call people wanting to leave the European Union racist as I think it's often wrong anyway, also it entrenches people more and it drags out resentful 'screw you' turnout, most of my fellow travellers at the time said I was wrong and variants of 'you have to call out x when you see it' and I said we'd lose that vote, which we did. Clinton's deplorables comment was much in the same vein and completely idiotic to do. You can basically only lose votes doing what she did, people who agree, already agree anyway, and there will be floating voters feeling alienated by such an association.

I think people should apply the same vague standard to Trump on his bullshit, his weird skillset will eventually become way more of a liability than an asset.

On April 14 2019 00:04 Danglars wrote:

I note your vehemence, but this is not the forum that I can respond in kind.

“It’s bullshit” “he’s done jack shit” “crying like a little bitch” “it’s being a bitch” “another dipshit moment” “disagrees with the views of his Lord and savior” “patently untrue not that it matters for you, never has as we know” “you sound like a moron” “every time you make blatantly bullshit arguments like that” “retarded”.

I will be banned for responding with the vigor you display, and I have been banned in the past for doing far less across many posts. I wish this was the place to tolerate right-left at this level, but I know otherwise. Me and the mods have had PMs regarding this. So, sorry, but your vigorous disagreement is noted but must be left unanswered.

On April 14 2019 03:34 Danglars wrote:

Let me first say that you have a debatable perspective. Trump has many negatives so it's worth considering that maybe they're simply so bad that they universally outweigh the good. If Trump is not Trump and is instead the GOP, maybe the brand suffers like Assange and Wikileaks (assuming there's something core about the organizational infrastructure apart from the "idea" of having a publisher of leaked government secrets. I like having organizations that track hate groups, but the SPLC uses its crusade contrary to those ends, and needs replacement). The example closer to you might be future suffering of the conservatives because they chose Cameron and then May to represent their party. That's a huge risk.

I'll let you know about another argument in this vein. One version of it has won me over, though a full exposition is probably too long. Let's say Corbyn is pretty bad, and the vein of his successors would be even worse. There's an argument for letting him win a couple, because the politically potent opposition has its own steep negatives. On the other side, maybe the damage done to the country in the meantime is bad enough that it's better to rush in with who you have to seize victory, though it's only half a victory and won at great cost. There's no guarantee that the next anti-Corbyn figure is any more principled and courageous as the last guy, indeed he or she could just adopt 75% of Corbyn's platform and call himself a great moderate reformer, whereas the policies you think are good for the country include 0% of his platform.

This was roughly the central thesis behind The Flight 93 Election. I hope you've read it. It's very important for people that oppose Trump's political platform (to the extent he cleaves to one) to understand the perspective of people that steadfastly support a Republican Platform (to the extent it actually believes and implements it) against the Democratic one. Trump's opposition is a mix of the general revulsion of traditionally Republican principles of religious liberty, strong borders, support of Israel, America-first foreign policy, and revulsion at the man himself and his speech and his way of doing things. For the principles, they're opposed for being purely discriminatory, inhumane, anti-Palestinian, and isolationist. For the verbal and written expression of the opposition, the same class has been leveled at every candidate before Trump, who universally were called racist and sexist and anti-poor. You may understand that I'm less worried about what people scream about Trump when they've done the same thing for 20 years, and will do the same thing for another 20, if not until we're all dead and buried.

You may remember, I didn't seek to put Trump on a pedestal on the post you responded to. I ranked him on a dimension compared to our last candidates and the party in general. It's only in a time of great internal party corruption that Trump actually is called for (and I thought we had a couple better choices in the primary and didn't support Trump until it was him or Hillary). It's also only in a time of great political bitterness and division that Trump is necessary. You want to say whiteness is the big problem, and tight borders are racist, and one group gets handouts and the other gets active discrimination? Here's the guy that will throw it back in your face. You can say Republicans are literally causing the deaths of millions, and that's not incitement, but Trump's attacks on a craven media are inciting violence? Here's a guy that understands the double standard at work and will punish you for it. You may be the little guy, and he's a very poor fit for a champion of the little guy, but he's still out there amplifying your voice of opposition. Frankly, that was missing from past candidates who courted media favor and wanted to raise the discourse above binders-of-women-style attacks. If it had worked and politics functioned in that way, then I'm the first one behind you.The high road when people chant "Blood for Oil" and McCain ads were "crypto-racist" or "deliberately and deceptively racist," and "binders of women" and "Romney paid zero taxes. It turns out that passivity in the face of such assaults from the left discourages voters from rallying against it (weak leader won't fight back) and discourages voters from crossing over (he deserves it, just look at how he has nothing to say).

Populists rarely make good in-roads after one victory bucking the establishment. I give you that, and I think it's baked into Republican democracy and the democratic tradition since at least the ancient greeks (see, for example Hanson's Dueling Populisms). They function as a very crude relief valve against elites operating for their own benefit, both in moral satisfaction and power. Trump will pass. He's limited to a maximum of two terms. What sticks with us is a media and DNC that will still say they aren't inveterate liars and fabricators, all the while paying for Russian gossip to shop to their friends in the FBI for useful spying operations. I'm willing to give a very blunt instrument a strike against that organization, even knowing it's diminished by the skill of the wielder and his grasp of the situation.

That's at least an overview of the calculus. I also grant you that it is tough to see the argument if you think the platform and policy ideas are rubbish to begin with.

On April 14 2019 07:25 Wombat_NI wrote:
Immigration I actually wanted to see move from the previous impasse to the forefront of things in being more fundamentally discussed, in terms of things I thought might be incidental benefits of Trump shifting orthodoxy. To pick one example.

My issue with immigration is it’s not a symmetrical, uniform phenomenon, especially across socio-economic class and the discourse does not reflect this.

In Britain it was just kicked down the road until we ended up with Brexit, whereas if the concerns of the working class hadn’t been so dismissively treated, maybe that doesn’t happen.

On April 14 2019 07:34 Gorsameth wrote:
Discussion happens a lot more when there is a need to compromise (and a desire to do so) which often doesn't happen in 2 party systems.

You just get 2 sides saying opposite things and neither side willing to move.

On April 14 2019 03:34 Danglars wrote:

This was roughly the central thesis behind The Flight 93 Election. I hope you've read it. It's very important for people that oppose Trump's political platform (to the extent he cleaves to one) to understand the perspective of people that steadfastly support a Republican Platform (to the extent it actually believes and implements it) against the Democratic one. Trump's opposition is a mix of the general revulsion of traditionally Republican principles of religious liberty, strong borders, support of Israel, America-first foreign policy, and revulsion at the man himself and his speech and his way of doing things. For the principles, they're opposed for being purely discriminatory, inhumane, anti-Palestinian, and isolationist. For the verbal and written expression of the opposition, the same class has been leveled at every candidate before Trump, who universally were called racist and sexist and anti-poor. You may understand that I'm less worried about what people scream about Trump when they've done the same thing for 20 years, and will do the same thing for another 20, if not until we're all dead and buried.

On April 14 2019 02:58 GreenHorizons wrote:


My opinion is that it's not so much a mistake as an unfortunate necessity. They have anti-trump, shallow identity politics, and "reforming capitalism, police, politics, etc..." as critiques of the system. They can't substantively critique the system and the process itself. When they do it exposes that it's something Democratic leadership supports itself.

Israel, private insurers, Syria, Military budgets, "tough on crime", "border security", on and on. When you scratch beneath the surface of stuff beyond gay wedding cakes, officer cams, and the political theater I find that on the big issues, they are often more aligned than not.

That when you really talk about the drivers of inequality, climate change, and oppression in general you find both political parties on the same side, against the people.


Sincerely doubt the Mueller report has anything people don't already believe in it or that anything in it will change anyone's mind toward it being effective (other than those doubtful it would help Trump maybe).

As to going after Trump after he leaves office, besides the statutes running out if he gets a second term, there's pretty much 0 chance of prosecuting an ex-president. So either he they take his losing and call it a wash, or he wins and is statutorily protected.



Say this one again and louder for those in the back

On April 14 2019 08:30 iamthedave wrote:


Does that actually work though? Can anyone present a better plan than Trump's lies, which simply grow to match anything you throw at them, and people believe them for some reason?

As 'obvious' as it sounds, Trump's in a unique position where a fairly large chunk of America seems to have decided to tell themselves that Trump isn't full of shit no matter how obviously he is, and proving that he is only makes them more convinced he's telling the truth.

Though the larger problem is one of your favourite talking points; the Democrats are still pro establishment; they want to improve the establishment, but they're still pro establishment. Those shackles seem heavy right now, where Trump - despite being obviously very establishment - can convince people he's anti establishment by just claiming that he is.

On April 14 2019 08:57 Nebuchad wrote:
At some point we're going to have to define identity politics clearly because the real definition of identity politics is something that is obviously good, and that's clearly not what people talk about when they say identity politics.

Language matters because by associating the term to those bad things you're thinking about right now, some people with not the best intentions have managed to make you discard the entirety of a concept that is quite important and useful.

On April 14 2019 09:16 JimmiC wrote:

Unless anyone can show proof of the above I think from now on we should consider it gas lighting and not do it here.

The only response was exactly about how the dems are against open borders so lets stop.