The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Maybe because Obama is just a continuation of all the worst Bush-era policies?

Didn't he run on a platform, and continually promise, that he was not going to continue Bush-era policies?

Yes, but he has failed to live up to that promise. It's the reason why I laugh at Whembly et al. when he regurgitates all the derposphere "Obama is a commie socialist" nonsense; it just doesn't hold up when you take an objective look at what's going on.

I never said he's a "commie socialist"... only that he's a "leftist donkey-cave".

Get your facts straight!

Seriously... I think the blue flavor-aid drinkers can acknowledge that Obama hasn't kept his promises... but, then they'd think what if a Romney was president... then, they'd give Obama a pass.

To be fair, the red flavor-aid drinkers would do the exact opposite too.

But it'd be nice if the Obama supporters would call his gak out. The only two I can think of right now both Ouze and d-usa has publically criticized Obama here... You? You just want a pound-o-whembly's flesh.

**AlmightyWalrus**

That's a point: why on EARTH is the GOP the red ones when they're on the political right, and the DNC the blue ones when they're (your) left?! GAH!

**whembly**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's a point: why on EARTH is the GOP the red ones when they're on the political right, and the DNC the blue ones when they're (your) left?! GAH!

No clue...

But we 'Murricans do it right.

**AlmightyWalrus**

whembly wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's a point: why on EARTH is the GOP the red ones when they're on the political right, and the DNC the blue ones when they're (your) left?! GAH!

No clue...

But we 'Murricans do it right.

Yeah, that's why it's called the "Red scare", eh?

**whembly**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
whembly wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's a point: why on EARTH is the GOP the red ones when they're on the political right, and the DNC the blue ones when they're (your) left?! GAH!

No clue...

But we 'Murricans do it right.

Yeah, that's why it's called the "Red scare", eh?

Heh.

Honestly, I think it used to be that the colors are switched periodically. Blue was the Republican's color for the longest time.

**Co'tor Shas**

According to Wikipedia, we can all blame CBS (and network new in general).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

**Breotan**

So, what is the general consensus of the Elections held on the 2nd? Obama was handed some significant losses with a Republican taking the Governorship in Kentucky despite the amount of money Bloomberg threw into that race. A Sheriff in San Francisco who openly supported sanctuary city status got booted. Ohio rejected legal pot. Lots of other stuff.

**d-usa**

Wasn't the 2000 election the big election that solidified the "red/blue" map thing?

**Breotan**

d-usa wrote:
Wasn't the 2000 election the big election that solidified the "red/blue" map thing?

Yep.

**whembly**

Breotan wrote:
So, what is the general consensus of the Elections held on the 2nd? Obama was handed some significant losses with a Republican taking the Governorship in Kentucky

A poor candidate running on repeal of Obamacare won over an established strong Democratic candidate.

Also, his Lt. Govenor is the first elected female black politician in state of KY (a Tea Party activist too).

What's even more interesting, is that the polls prior to the election had the Democratic candidate up by 5% points, and yet he lost by 8%. That's a hella swing and calls into questions of the veracity of any polls.

despite the amount of money Bloomberg threw into that race.

I think you meant the Virginian state elections? If so, yup, the Republican retained their control of both houses, despite Bloomberg pooring so much gun-control ads.

A Sheriff in San Francisco who openly supported sanctuary city status got booted.

Good.

Ohio rejected legal pot. Lots of other stuff.

That one was a weird one... as I understood it, it would allow a vote later on for medicinal & recreational use. In addition, it'll create state sponsored monopolies of the weed growers (aka, for the donors), which may have been the main reason why this was rejected. As it would obviously create a few super wealthy weed growers, who in turn, would donate to their respective parties.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breotan wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Wasn't the 2000 election the big election that solidified the "red/blue" map thing?

Yep.

That's what I thought, but I couldn't find anything online that would confirm this.

**Breotan**

whembly wrote:
In addition, it'll create state sponsored monopolies of the weed growers (aka, for the donors), which may have been the main reason why this was rejected. As it would obviously create a few super wealthy weed growers, who in turn, would donate to their respective parties.

Ya, I thought that looked fishy. Good thing people can still spot and reject such crass and blatant corruption.

**Co'tor Shas**

It should be mentioned, however, that the Ohio legislature is going to talk about it now, so that's a plus.

Looks like there are moves in the direction here in NY. We don't really have the same sort of ballot initiatives out here, but there are moves in the state legislature.

**Breotan**

I'm still wary of these pot initiatives. I can see the tobacco conglomerates getting involved and screwing up pot the way they did tobacco.

**Co'tor Shas**

Let's hope not. Because, as much as I want that sweet, sweet, tax money, I sure as hell don't want them to use the same techniques they use with cigarettes (all sorts of crap in those, beyond just tobacco, ans they are often marketed to kids, which is something I'd like to avoid, same as alcohol).

**LordofHats**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Let's hope not. Because, as much as I want that sweet, sweet, tax money, I sure as hell don't want them to use the same techniques they use with cigarettes (all sorts of crap in those, beyond just tobacco, ans they are often marketed to kids, which is something I'd like to avoid, same as alcohol).

What is worse;

The utterly disgusting Tobacco Industry
The very bloody/expensive Drug War

Literally the choice of a giant douche or a turd sandwich. Decisions decisions...

**Co'tor Shas**

I really have to wonder which one of those has killed more people.

**LordofHats**

Iknowright?

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

A Sheriff in San Francisco who openly supported sanctuary city status got booted.

Good.

It bears mentioning that Mirkarimi (the sheriff in question) narrowly avoided losing his seat following a domestic violence conviction, and that 2 of the 4 supervisors who voted to reinstate him subsequently lost their positions. As San Francisco will remain a sanctuary city, it seems likely that the domestic violence scandal was the primary reason for his ouster.

**Breotan**

War on drugs is about more than pot so you'll have a hard time with numbers. Tobacco death statistics are more readily available.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:

I never said he's a "commie socialist"... only that he's a "leftist donkey-cave".

Get your facts straight!

Except he isn't a "leftist" in the real world, only in the right wing derposphere that you place so much stock in. He's pretty much Bush 2.0, so I guess Bush is now a "leftist donkey-cave" to you now?

Seriously... I think the blue flavor-aid drinkers can acknowledge that Obama hasn't kept his promises... but, then they'd think what if a Romney was president... then, they'd give Obama a pass.

I love it when you just assume things without anything to actually back it up. What else is going on in this imaginary land you've created? It sounds interesting!

To be fair, the red flavor-aid drinkers would do the exact opposite too.

So.... you're admitting you do that?

But it'd be nice if the Obama supporters would call his gak out. The only two I can think of right now both Ouze and d-usa has publically criticized Obama here... You? You just want a pound-o-whembly's flesh.

No, I've been critical of Obama plenty of times and I'm also certainly not an "Obama supporter" (outside of voting for him, which I wish I hadn't). Yet no matter how many times I've explained that I'm not, you just ignore it and pretend I said the opposite (which is kind of par for the course for you it would seem). Kind of like all those times you've accused me of being a Hilary or Sanders supporter, even though I have never supported either one of them. For whatever reason, you think because I disagree with most of your stupid bs that I must love Obama or whomever else you don't like.

If you want to ignore the things I say and just pretend I'm trying to pick on you, go right ahead.

**BlaxicanX**

The original thread on this topic was closed, so I guess I'll just drop this here.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/04/454672813/controversial-marine-corps-study-on-gender-integration-published-in-full

I recall that a fair number of people wanted to see the full report before making any judgement, so there you go.

**Co'tor Shas**

Eh, I said it before and I'll say it again. Fewer women will get in, but those who can reach those same levels should be allowed in. Individual merit.

**motyak**

To be clear before this starts: focus on the politics. Arguments about whether women can or can't do X are off topic here and will be treated as such

**whembly**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
whembly wrote:

I never said he's a "commie socialist"... only that he's a "leftist donkey-cave".

Get your facts straight!
Except he isn't a "leftist" in the real world, only in the right wing derposphere that you place so much stock in. He's pretty much Bush 2.0, so I guess Bush is now a "leftist donkey-cave" to you now?

That is absolutely absurd. Here's how far lefty Obama was in 2008 as senator:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/barack_obama/400629

Or DW-Nomiate:
https://voteviewblog.wordpress.com/category/presidential-square-wave/

Seriously... I think the blue flavor-aid drinkers can acknowledge that Obama hasn't kept his promises... but, then they'd think what if a Romney was president... then, they'd give Obama a pass.
I love it when you just assume things without anything to actually back it up. What else is going on in this imaginary land you've created? It sounds interesting!

It's called an observation.

Where's the cry to have Obama shut down Gitmo? What about his extra-judicial drone killers? What about NSA wiretapping? etc... These are only SOME things that happened under Obama's watch and had it been a Republican, it'd be news 24/7 in yo face!

Another example... remember the Grim Milestones of US servicemen's death during Bush's tenure? That was a mainstay in the media Every. Single. Day. During Obama's tenure? Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

But, go ahead and keep on making yourself looking silly.

To be fair, the red flavor-aid drinkers would do the exact opposite too.
So.... you're admitting you do that?

You first.

But it'd be nice if the Obama supporters would call his gak out. The only two I can think of right now both Ouze and d-usa has publically criticized Obama here... You? You just want a pound-o-whembly's flesh.
No, I've been critical of Obama plenty of times and I'm also certainly not an "Obama supporter" (outside of voting for him, which I wish I hadn't). Yet no matter how many times I've explained that I'm not, you just ignore it and pretend I said the opposite (which is kind of par for the course for you it would seem). Kind of like all those times you've accused me of being a Hilary or Sanders supporter, even though I have never supported either one of them. For whatever reason, you think because I disagree with most of your stupid bs that I must love Obama or whomever else you don't like.

If you want to ignore the things I say and just pretend I'm trying to pick on you, go right ahead.

Well... by the nature of our tango here, at least admit that you do give that impression.

I'm glad that you wished you hadn't voted for him... was that more like buyer's remorse? Did you like Obama "The Greatest Campagner" more than Obama "I have no fething Clue what I'm doing at the WhiteHouse"??

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Where's the cry to have Obama shut down Gitmo? What about his extra-judicial drone killers? What about NSA wiretapping? etc... These are only SOME things that happened under Obama's watch and had it been a Republican, it'd be news 24/7 in yo face!

There were lots of news stories about NSA wiretapping, and extra-judicial drone killings when those stories broke. Then the stories became old, and the major news organizations moved on, just as they would have done if a Republican had been President. There have been intermittent stories regarding Obama's failure to close Guantanamo (Or a fairly constant barrage of them, if you look at very liberal outlets.), but that's never really been a breaking story that would be plastered all over the front page of any major news website.

This is argument that Democratic Presidents are somehow given a free pass by the press is an argument that gets trotted out time and again, and it just gets more tired with time.

**d-usa**

A quick Google search of CNN shows a story about it not closing yet every couple months. Not a constant garage, but not ignoring it either.

The same groups that have wanted to see it shut down are still wanting it shut down. But without any action there is just no story to cover. News are not going to do a "today's top story: no new story" report.

Of course today's report is that the WH is gonna execute order the issue and present their plan to congress in a few days.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:

That is absolutely absurd. Here's how far lefty Obama was in 2008 as senator:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/barack_obama/400629

Or DW-Nomiate:
https://voteviewblog.wordpress.com/category/presidential-square-wave/

Spoiler:

I know that voting records in Congress aren't a real measure of whether someone is liberal or conservative is something that has been discussed here in the past, which I'm sure you have either forgotten about or just disregard because it doesn't fit with how you see things. I'm pretty sure it was Dogma that brought that up months ago.

It's called an observation.

Okay, so you're observing things and making up an imaginary narrative that isn't real life.

Where's the cry to have Obama shut down Gitmo? What about his extra-judicial drone killers? What about NSA wiretapping? etc... These are only SOME things that happened under Obama's watch and had it been a Republican, it'd be news 24/7 in yo face!

Another example... remember the Grim Milestones of US servicemen's death during Bush's tenure? That was a mainstay in the media Every. Single. Day. During Obama's tenure? Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

But, go ahead and keep on making yourself looking silly.

How am I making myself look silly? I'm talking about the fact that Obama isn't crazy far left commie and more a continuation of Bush and you're bringing up things that prove my point while complaining that the media isn't fair. I know you watch Fox News (the largest and most watched cable news channel), do they not talk about Obama and his "scandals" every single day? I mean for feth's sake, they have a "Scandals" tab on their website.

I know you're big into the "Republicans are persecuted by the media" myth, but dude... wake the feth up and come back to Earth for the sake of us all. You're better than this.

Well... by the nature of our tango here, at least admit that you do give that impression.

No, you just think that anyone who doesn't agree with your bs must be the exact opposite of you. Unfortunately, the world isn't black and white.

I'm glad that you wished you hadn't voted for him... was that more like buyer's remorse? Did you like Obama "The Greatest Campagner" more than Obama "I have no fething Clue what I'm doing at the WhiteHouse"??

Here's the difference between you and I: I think he knows what he's doing, I just don't agree with it. You just think he's an idiot.

Moving on, Obama actually did something I very much agree with (and I didn't see anyone bring it up yet):

Obama Bans Hiring Bias Against Ex-Cons Seeking Federal Jobs

On Monday, President Obama is announcing a new order to reduce potential discrimination against former convicts in the hiring process for federal government employees.

It is a step towards what many criminal justice reformers call "ban the box" - the effort to eliminate requirements that job applicants check a box on their applications if they have a criminal record. While the rule was once seen as a common sense way for employers to screen for criminal backgrounds, it has been increasingly criticized as a hurdle that fosters employment discrimination against former inmates, regardless of the severity of their offense or how long ago it occurred. Banning the box delays when employers learn of an applicant's record.

President Obama is unveiling the plan on a visit to a treatment center in New Jersey, a state where Republican Gov. Chris Christie signed a ban the box bill into law last year. Hillary Clinton endorsed ban the box last week, while Republican Sen. Rand Paul also introduced similar federal legislation, with Democrat Cory Booker, to seal criminal records for non-violent offenders.

The White House says it is "encouraged" by such legislation in a new statement, but emphasizes the president's order will take immediate action, mandating that the federal government's HR department "delay inquiries into criminal history until later in the hiring process."

President Obama spoke to several federal prisoners about that very approach in July, when he was the first sitting president to visit an American prison.

"If the disclosure of a criminal record happens later in a job application process," he told them, "you're more likely to be hired." Obama described what many studies show - that when many employers see the box checked for an applicant's criminal record, they weed them out without ever looking at their qualifications.

"If they have a chance to at least meet you," the president continued, "you're able to talk to them about your life, what you've done, maybe they give you a chance."

About 60-to-75% of former inmates cannot find work within their first year out of jail, according to the Justice Department, a huge impediment to re-entering society.

Research shows the existence of a criminal record can reduce an employer's interest in applicant by about 50%, and that when white and black applicants both have records, employers are far less likely to call back a black applicant than a white one. As a 2009 re-entry study in New York city found, "the criminal record penalty suffered by white applicants (30%) is roughly half the size of the penalty for blacks with a record (60%)."

Obama's move also comes in the wake of a growing movement for criminal justice reform - from broad calls by groups like Blacks Lives Matter to a specific campaign on ban the box that ranged from half the Senate Democratic caucus to civil rights groups to artists like John Legend.

The President is announcing several other measures Monday, including public housing and money for re-entry programs, and he is speaking about prison reform in a speech and an exclusive interview with NBC Nightly News Anchor Lester Holt.

**d-usa**

While we need a ton of reform in our criminal justice system on the front end of things (criminalization of things, sentencing guidelines, prison conditions, rehabilitation, etc) it is also encouraging to see movement on the post-conviction and incarceration side of things.

**Ensis Ferrae**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Moving on, Obama actually did something I very much agree with (and I didn't see anyone bring it up yet):

Obama Bans Hiring Bias Against Ex-Cons Seeking Federal Jobs

On Monday, President Obama is announcing a new order to reduce potential discrimination against former convicts in the hiring process for federal government employees.

It is a step towards what many criminal justice reformers call "ban the box" - the effort to eliminate requirements that job applicants check a box on their applications if they have a criminal record. While the rule was once seen as a common sense way for employers to screen for criminal backgrounds, it has been increasingly criticized as a hurdle that fosters employment discrimination against former inmates, regardless of the severity of their offense or how long ago it occurred. Banning the box delays when employers learn of an applicant's record.

President Obama is unveiling the plan on a visit to a treatment center in New Jersey, a state where Republican Gov. Chris Christie signed a ban the box bill into law last year. Hillary Clinton endorsed ban the box last week, while Republican Sen. Rand Paul also introduced similar federal legislation, with Democrat Cory Booker, to seal criminal records for non-violent offenders.

The White House says it is "encouraged" by such legislation in a new statement, but emphasizes the president's order will take immediate action, mandating that the federal government's HR department "delay inquiries into criminal history until later in the hiring process."

President Obama spoke to several federal prisoners about that very approach in July, when he was the first sitting president to visit an American prison.

"If the disclosure of a criminal record happens later in a job application process," he told them, "you're more likely to be hired." Obama described what many studies show - that when many employers see the box checked for an applicant's criminal record, they weed them out without ever looking at their qualifications.

"If they have a chance to at least meet you," the president continued, "you're able to talk to them about your life, what you've done, maybe they give you a chance."

About 60-to-75% of former inmates cannot find work within their first year out of jail, according to the Justice Department, a huge impediment to re-entering society.

Research shows the existence of a criminal record can reduce an employer's interest in applicant by about 50%, and that when white and black applicants both have records, employers are far less likely to call back a black applicant than a white one. As a 2009 re-entry study in New York city found, "the criminal record penalty suffered by white applicants (30%) is roughly half the size of the penalty for blacks with a record (60%)."

Obama's move also comes in the wake of a growing movement for criminal justice reform - from broad calls by groups like Blacks Lives Matter to a specific campaign on ban the box that ranged from half the Senate Democratic caucus to civil rights groups to artists like John Legend.

The President is announcing several other measures Monday, including public housing and money for re-entry programs, and he is speaking about prison reform in a speech and an exclusive interview with NBC Nightly News Anchor Lester Holt.

Good.

Although we're doing/have done something similar here in Washington, There's realistically only one criminal category that I'd "like" to see still on employment apps: sex-crimes perpetrated against minors.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

d-usa wrote:While we need a ton of reform in our criminal justice system on the front end of things (criminalization of things, sentencing guidelines, prison conditions, rehabilitation, etc) it is also encouraging to see movement on the post-conviction and incarceration side of things.

I couldn't agree more. When someone has paid their debt to society, it should be done. This is a great first step but more needs to be done, like ending felony disenfranchisement.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:Good.

Although we're doing/have done something similar here in Washington, There's realistically only one criminal category that I'd "like" to see still on employment apps: sex-crimes perpetrated against minors.

I kind of agree and kind of not agree because not all of the crimes covered under that umbrella are equal.

Of course, we could be like one of my extreme right wing friends who's reaction to this story was "Obama isn't even trying to hide his hatred of America. This isn't what the Founders had in mind!"