US & NA Politics Thread

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.

**DarkTraveler777**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
ChargerIIC wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
whembly wrote:
Captain Joystick wrote:
whembly wrote:
PR should be the 51st state imo (yeah, yeah that's like 2 free D Senators and 'x' D congressman... but how is their situation really that different from Hawaii?)

It's not that different, but Hawaii had to petition for state hood for something like 50 years- and the arguments against had a lot to do with the colour of its populace.

Wut?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Puerto_Rico
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/pr

69% of the population is white. They're whiter than the state of Florida!

Methinks the cause is something else....

Maybe it is because they speak Spanish?

You aren't from California are you? You are either bilingual or eat nothing but national-level fast food for the rest of your life.

To be fair, plenty of Red Staters despise the existence of California.

Yep. Crapping on the Golden State seems to be a Red State past time. It is fine. The feeling is pretty mutual.

**Rosebuddy**

gorgon wrote:

Yeah, but I don't know what could have changed the end result other than nominating Bernie. The Bernie supporters didn't seem to be operating at a regular political level...looking for give and take, recognition, planks in the platform, etc. It was Bernie or bust...as evidenced by how many of them took their balls and went home even after Bernie told them to get out and vote for Hillary.

There were things that the Dems could have done better or differently, but ultimately I think the Bernie situation was their Kobayashi Maru.

Didn't a pretty big majority of Sanders voters go on to vote for Clinton? What percentage of Sanders supporters abstained from voting at all?

Kilkrazy wrote:
"Bring back jobs" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Build a wall" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Cut taxes" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Ban muslims" is a slogan, not a policy.

Trump doesn't do policies.

I would say those are policies. Not big on details and I don't like them, but policies nonetheless. You don't have to be a technocrat to write policy.

**Spetulhu**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
It's still a policy. It may be completely crazy and unworkable but it's a policy.

Ah ok, so if we totally ignore what policy is everything can be policy

Populist politics, my dear. You don't need to actually say how you're going to tackle a problem, the voters concerned about the problem or just disappointed with the current rulers will still want to give you a chance. Some of them may believe you can actually do it but many vote for you just as a protest against "the system".

**Asherian Command**

Vaktathi wrote:
Judge threatens to hold Sessions in contempt after mother and daughter are put on plane to be deported after being told that would not yet happen while appeals were pending, tells govt to "turn the plane around"

The hell?

REALLY?! Gosh I hate this.

**Bran Dawri**

@ChargeIIC: or, I dunno, cook for yourself? It's healthier, cheaper, and with a bit of practice tastes better, too.

@ Asherian: muslim ban isn't racist. Islam is not a race. It's still discriminatory and vile, but not inherently racist. (And I do believe that discrimination on religious grounds is illegal according to the US constitution. In fact, I think it's more illegal than actual racism, but that's beside the point.)

**Luke_Prowler**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Yep. Crapping on the Golden State seems to be a Red State past time. It is fine. The feeling is pretty mutual.

It's amazing that the party claiming to be for meritocracy are so quick to attack one of the leading economic forces of the country, while many of their supporters run a deficit.

**Peregrine**

Bran Dawri wrote:
@ Asherian: muslim ban isn't racist. Islam is not a race. It's still discriminatory and vile, but not inherently racist. (And I do believe that discrimination on religious grounds is illegal according to the US constitution. In fact, I think it's more illegal than actual racism, but that's beside the point.)

Let's be honest here, a Muslim ban in theory might be discrimination based on religion instead of race but for many of the people supporting it "Muslim" is defined by race. That's why you get things like Sikhs or Arabic Christians getting harassed for being "Muslims", because the sort of ignorant racist

who wants to ban all Muslims from the US just sees a dark-skinned person wearing "foreign" clothes and declares them to be a Muslim.

**Vaktathi**

Assange offers to appear before Senate Intel Committee

Strange days...

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:
Bran Dawri wrote:
@ Asherian: muslim ban isn't racist. Islam is not a race. It's still discriminatory and vile, but not inherently racist. (And I do believe that discrimination on religious grounds is illegal according to the US constitution. In fact, I think it's more illegal than actual racism, but that's beside the point.)

Let's be honest here, a Muslim ban in theory might be discrimination based on religion instead of race but for many of the people supporting it "Muslim" is defined by race. That's why you get things like Sikhs or Arabic Christians getting harassed for being "Muslims", because the sort of ignorant racist who wants to ban all Muslims from the US just sees a dark-skinned person wearing "foreign" clothes and declares them to be a Muslim.

That's just straight up bigotry.

However, the POTUS has wiiiiiiiiide latitude in determining 'who' and 'from where' an immigrant to gain entry.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:
Assange offers to appear before Senate Intel Committee

Strange days...

wut.

Why?

**Peregrine**

Vaktathi wrote:
Assange offers to appear before Senate Intel Committee

Strange days...

Note the key point: his current hosts are starting to consider handing him over. If he can make a deal to appear in the US to testify then he escapes that building, with an obvious condition that he is released somewhere safe. And will the UK stand up to the US and refuse to allow him to leave? Or will they give in and allow him to be handed over?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
That's just straight up bigotry.

Yes, that would accurately describe racists.

However, the POTUS has wiiiiiiiiide latitude in determining 'who' and 'from where' an immigrant to gain entry.

Legally, perhaps. But let's not pretend that his reasoning is anything more than "keep those icky brown terrorists out", or that the courts haven't shut down his attempts as blatant racial and/or religious discrimination.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Bran Dawri wrote:
@ChargeIIC: or, I dunno, cook for yourself? It's healthier, cheaper, and with a bit of practice tastes better, too.

@ Asherian: muslim ban isn't racist. Islam is not a race. It's still discriminatory and vile, but not inherently racist. (And I do believe that discrimination on religious grounds is illegal according to the US constitution. In fact, I think it's more illegal than actual racism, but that's beside the point.)

*insert 5-page discussion about whether or not cultural racism is a thing or not where we reach no consensus as usual*

**Luke_Prowler**

Yeah, lets stop getting dragged into stupid arguments and stick to the point: the Muslim ban is not *good*, regardless of the reason.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Rosebuddy wrote:
gorgon wrote:

Yeah, but I don't know what could have changed the end result other than nominating Bernie. The Bernie supporters didn't seem to be operating at a regular political level...looking for give and take, recognition, planks in the platform, etc. It was Bernie or bust...as evidenced by how many of them took their balls and went home even after Bernie told them to get out and vote for Hillary.

There were things that the Dems could have done better or differently, but ultimately I think the Bernie situation was their Kobayashi Maru.

Didn't a pretty big majority of Sanders voters go on to vote for Clinton? What percentage of Sanders supporters abstained from voting at all?

Kilkrazy wrote:
"Bring back jobs" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Build a wall" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Cut taxes" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Ban muslims" is a slogan, not a policy.

Trump doesn't do policies.

I would say those are policies. Not big on details and I don't like them, but policies nonetheless. You don't have to be a technocrat to write policy.

Where is the line, then? Would "make it all better" be a policy? "Do best"?

**Asherian Command**

Luke_Prowler wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Yep. Crapping on the Golden State seems to be a Red State past time. It is fine. The feeling is pretty mutual.

It's amazing that the party claiming to be for meritocracy are so quick to attack one of the leading economic forces of the country, while many of their supporters run a deficit.

Well its the take mentality that the current republician base is. Its : "ONLY I CAN TAKE! IF OTHER PEOPLE DO THAT MEANS THE SYSTEM ISN'T WORKING."

The conservative party is predominately white, evangelicals. Most of that base is hypocritical. the republican base is continuously influx of losing more members. Now this isn't all republician voters but its gotten to the point where many times I've found it hard to agree with a republician simply due to racist rhetoric and the use of the "other" ad homenium attacks or making ita pure white and black issue.

The simple fact is that all predominately red states add to the national debt because of poor government leadership and because they refuse to move forward.

That's just straight up bigotry.

However, the POTUS has wiiiiiiiiide latitude in determining 'who' and 'from where' an immigrant to gain entry.

Morallity is a fickle thing just because you can... Doesn't mean you should.

The president has lots of powers it can enact but it doesn't mean you should hit the switch whenever you want.

Assange offers to appear before Senate Intel Committee

Strange days...

Oh boy! This should be interesting...

lets hope he isn't given a uranium pill.

muslim ban isn't racist. Islam is not a race.

That is racist though, being jewish is technically being apart of a race. Its deeply tied to culture and to people. To say it isn't is to be devoid of its history. Muslims are predominately from the middle east, because it was created there.

Now there might be exceptions but its not a significant population to warrant a merit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luke_Prowler wrote:
Yeah, lets stop getting dragged into stupid arguments and stick to the point: the Muslim ban is not *good*, regardless of the reason.

Wait what?

While I agree about pointless arguments.

Its historical prevalence at this point.

**DarkTraveler777**

Luke_Prowler wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Yep. Crapping on the Golden State seems to be a Red State past time. It is fine. The feeling is pretty mutual.

It's amazing that the party claiming to be for meritocracy are so quick to attack one of the leading economic forces of the country, while many of their supporters run a deficit.

That always baffled and amused me as well.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Is it okay if we skip the half dozen posts explaining Muslim population demographics to Asherian Command and just come back to where we agree that the ban is not good and then move on from there?

**Luke_Prowler**

Asherian Command wrote:
Luke_Prowler wrote:
Yeah, lets stop getting dragged into stupid arguments and stick to the point: the Muslim ban is not *good*, regardless of the reason.

Wait what?

While I agree about pointless arguments.

Its historical prevalence at this point.

That doesn't matter. We should be picking our battles, getting dragged into the weeds is part of the problem. Stick to current policy making, actions made by current and upcoming politicians (focusing on good actions by left wingers), and fact checks someone when they say something that can be proven to be objectively wrong.

When you let your opponent pick the battlefield, you lose.

**ChargerIIC**

Bran Dawri wrote:
@ChargeIIC: or, I dunno, cook for yourself? It's healthier, cheaper, and with a bit of practice tastes better, too.

Why the hell would I do that. I'm a born and bred Californio. I know every good Taqueria in every town I've lived in. And more than few bad ones. That's not counting the number of pizza places out here which require a little bilingual knowledge for food ordering.

I cook for myself too, but in true California fashion we make Tacos, Sushi, Fried Chicken, burritos, Stir Fry, Orange Chicken and even the occasional hamburger.

**BobtheInquisitor**

You don't have to be bilingual to say, "I'll have the 27."

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Suddenly kind of relevant.

**LordofHats**

Kilkrazy wrote:
"Bring back jobs" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Build a wall" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Cut taxes" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Ban muslims" is a slogan, not a policy.

Trump doesn't do policies.

I would say those are policies. Not big on details and I don't like them, but policies nonetheless. You don't have to be a technocrat to write policy.

I'd say each of those constitutes a policy goal, not policy. Policy is more than just what you seek to do its a means of implementing resources to achieve an end result.

Of course those, save for the first one, are all fairly simplistic goals.

**DarkTraveler777**

ChargerIIC wrote:
That's not counting the number of pizza places out here which require a little bilingual knowledge for food ordering.

Haha! My favorite Japanese spot's entire back area was almost entirely Spanish speaking. I'd always chuckle when passing the kitchen on the way to the restrooms. The place employed Asian staff for the front of the house but that kitchen was all East LA.

Still, I have lived in SoCal my entire life and don't speak enough Spanish to order anything other than curse words and I haven't starved yet.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You don't have to be bilingual to say, "I'll have the 27."

Exactly right!

**Prestor Jon**

Asherian Command wrote:
All of the items you list were absolutely factors in the election but you're being far too dismissive of the facts that Clinton had the second highest unfavorable ratings of any candidate in the history of tracking unfavorable ratings, second only to Trump. We had the two most disliked candidates running against each other for PotUS, that's going to depress turnout, we literally selected two hugely unpopular people to run in a popularity contest. Regardless of whether or not you think it was fair that Clinton was disliked or the means in which her unfavorability was heightened, it existed and it had an impact on both Republican and Democrat voters.

Second, the media gave Trump billions of dollars of coverage simply to chase ratings. Whatever your feelings on the whole FAKE NEWS meme, it is inarguable that the MSM showed a clear preference for covering Trump instead of other candidates. There were instances of stations like CNN and MSNBC showing live footage of an empty podium waiting for Trump to show up and speak instead of covering a Sanders event also occurring or any other candidate. The coverage featured far more pundits and talking heads discussing what Trump said, reactions to what Trump said and reactions to the reactions of what Trump said than providing background or contextual information regarding issues. The coverage wasn't about doing a public service to inform the electorate it was chasing and promoting controversy to increase ratings.

I agree that Clinton definitely could have campaigned better. It wouldn't have necessarily improved the quality of her positions but while every media outlet was racing to cover Trump 24/7 Clinton pretty much hid from the media and relied heavily on simply not being Trump carrying her to victory. This was exacerbated by the DNC's treatment of the Sanders campaign making it look like Clinton was trying push down the Sanders campaign while keeping her head down and waiting for Trump to finally self destruct instead of getting out and winning over voters..

See was she unpopular or was she shown to be unpopular because of that particular information. IT was because of the wikileaks and everything. Fake news etc.

Which i completely agree with you on. I didn't include your arguments entirely but that is what helped elect trump. Which is not only the news media's fault. But russian interference had a major factor in this election entirely. That and the bernie and bust group being ocherestrated by cambridge analyticia and russian agents.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/224330/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-new-low.aspx

Hillary had high unfavorables before she ran for President the first time that was part of why she lost the nomination to Obama. While SecState Hillary’s boss President Obama asked her to not accept foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Hillary ignored that order and that only amplified the narrative that the Clintons considered themselves to be above the law and the real power in the Democratic Party. Hillary’s unfavorabity rating peaked when her private email server scandal broke and that was a scandal entirely of Clinton’s own making. Nobody made her use a private server and I she had only followed the rules nothing would have happened but she chose to break the rules furthering the above the law narrative that defined her. When the Wikileaks scandal hit year it was obviously targeting Clinton but that didn’t change the content of the leaked emails that again cemented the narrative that the Clintons ignored rules, did as they wished and exercised their influence in the DNC to favor Hillary’s campaign and hamstring Sanders even though Clinton had an insurmountable lead with the popular vote and superdelegates. Pretty much all of the negatives that hurt Clinton in 2008 by damaging her charisma were made worse in 2016 through Clintons own behavior.

**Spetulhu**

Peregrine wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Assange offers to appear before Senate Intel Committee. Strange days...

Note the key point: his current hosts are starting to consider handing him over. If he can make a deal to appear in the US to testify then he escapes that building, with an obvious condition that he is released somewhere safe. And will the UK stand up to the US and refuse to allow him to leave? Or will they give in and allow him to be handed over?

Right now he's only wanted for skipping bail in the UK, and IIRC it's even a lesser sort of bail as he hasn't been indicted for a crime yet, the UK was only asked to send him to Sweden for hearings about a possible crime. So making it go away should be a pretty small thing if an old ally asks nicely about a far more important investigation. If I was Assange I'd be far more worried that the US won't hold up to their part of the bargain, capturing me for the earlier wikileaks stuff after I testify on the Russia connection.

**whembly**

Spetulhu wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Assange offers to appear before Senate Intel Committee. Strange days...

Note the key point: his current hosts are starting to consider handing him over. If he can make a deal to appear in the US to testify then he escapes that building, with an obvious condition that he is released somewhere safe. And will the UK stand up to the US and refuse to allow him to leave? Or will they give in and allow him to be handed over?

Right now he's only wanted for skipping bail in the UK, and IIRC it's even a lesser sort of bail as he hasn't been indicted for a crime yet, the UK was only asked to send him to Sweden for hearings about a possible crime. So making it go away should be a pretty small thing if an old ally asks nicely about a far more important investigation. If I was Assange I'd be far more worried that the US won't hold up to their part of the bargain, capturing me for the earlier wikileaks stuff after I testify on the Russia connection.

What would Assange be charged with by the US?

**Iron_Captain**

ChargerIIC wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
whembly wrote:
Captain Joystick wrote:
whembly wrote:
PR should be the 51st state imo (yeah, yeah that's like 2 free D Senators and 'x' D congressman... but how is their situation really that different from Hawaii?)

It's not that different, but Hawaii had to petition for state hood for something like 50 years- and the arguments against had a lot to do with the colour of its populace.

Wut?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Puerto_Rico
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/pr

69% of the population is white. They're whiter than the state of Florida!

Methinks the cause is something else....

Maybe it is because they speak Spanish?

You aren't from California are you? You are either bilingual or eat nothing but national-level fast food for the rest of your life.

I have been told that it is a massive mistake to assume California represents the entire US. Apparently California is a bit different from many other parts of the US.

**LordofHats**

I'd say it's a mistake to assume anyone one state is representative of the other forty-nine. Pretty much every state has its quirks, even the ones that are a lot alike in most respects.

**Asherian Command**

You aren't from California are you? You are either bilingual or eat nothing but national-level fast food for the rest of your life.

Heh.

:claps:

(My brother lives in Cali has been for over 8 years, so I can tell you no, if you go to nappa valley or hollywood you'll notice alot of differences rather quickly).

Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-news-mueller-trump-manafort-trial-evidence-20180809-story.html

Special counsel Robert Mueller made an unusual request Thursday to keep a Trump campaign-related portion of Paul Manafort’s trial confidential because it uncovered “substantive evidence” relating to the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The evidence was revealed during a private discussion between federal Virginia Judge T.S. Ellis and lawyers representing Manafort and his former associate Rick Gates, Mueller charged in a filing.

The discussion, a so-called “sidebar” conference, was called by Ellis after Manafort’s attorney Kevin Downing asked Gates on cross-examination about his sit downs with Mueller’s investigators.

“Were you interviewed on several occasions about your time on the Trump campaign?” Downing asked.

Prosecutors objected to the question and the sidebar ensued. Judge Ellis has instructed both sides to avoid talking about matters relating to President Trump and his campaign, citing potential biases among jurors.

A spokesman for Manafort declined to comment. The special counsel’s office referred to Mueller’s filing, but otherwise declined to comment.

“Disclosing the identified transcript portions would reveal substantive evidence pertaining to an ongoing investigation,” the filing states. “The government’s interest in protecting the confidentiality of its ongoing investigations is compelling and justifies sealing the limited portion of the sidebar.”

Mueller’s confidentiality request could indicate Gates is still cooperating with investigators. It could also signal Gates is assisting investigators with their inquiry into possible collusion between Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin, in addition to their prosecution of Manafort, who has been charged with a laundry list of crimes that do not relate directly to his time as the President’s campaign chairman.

Manafort, 69, faces tax and bank fraud charges in Ellis’ court. He faces a separate trial in Washington in September on charges including conspiracy against the U.S. and money laundering. Most of the counts relate to Manafort’s shadowy lobbying work for pro-Kremlin political forces in Ukraine.

Gates, 46, has pleaded guilty to financial crimes and lying to investigators.

He testified during Manafort’s trial that he committed crimes “at Mr. Manafort’s direction,” including tax evasion and bank fraud.

Manafort stared at his former associate as he testified. Gates did not once return his gaze.

Sooo wow.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
What would Assange be charged with by the US?

"Making the US look bad." Punishable by infinity years in a secret CIA prison.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
So making it go away should be a pretty small thing if an old ally asks nicely about a far more important investigation.

Remember how people dismiss the idea that Trump's poor diplomacy could cost us? Here we have an example of the US being in a situation to ask a favor of an ally, to set aside their own interest in Assange and let the US have priority. Easy enough, if you're on good terms with each other. No treaties, no acts of congress, just some quiet off the record conversations and things happen. But if one side just gave a giant

you to the other, well, is there the same incentive to do that favor?

**Asherian Command**

"Making the US look bad." Punishable by infinity years in a secret CIA prison.

Publishing of Top Secret Information
Working with Foreign Power In Conspiracy against the United States. (Made these up who knows at this point)

They can nail him on something knowing the US

**Peregrine**

Asherian Command wrote:
Publishing of Top Secret Information
Working with Foreign Power In Conspiracy against the United States. (Made these up who knows at this point)

They can nail him on something knowing the US

Where does the US have jurisdiction, given that Assange is not a US citizen nor was he present in the US for any of those actions? His concern was never any legitimate criminal charges, it was the possibility that the US would declare him an unlawful enemy combatant or whatever and make him disappear without a trial.