General US Politics

[XRay]

Did anyone else in California got a survey from the state via text message yesterday? The meat of the survey was about raising sales taxes on large corporations for professional services they hire (businesses typically have a lot of sales tax exemptions for B2B transactions), but it also asked about raising taxes in general. If you are not in California, does your state ask you to fill out surveys?

I was a bit skeptical at first with raising taxes on businesses, but as the survey made it clear that the tax increase would only apply to large corporations, I said I strongly supported the measure. Small companies are exempt. Not sure about medium sized companies, but I think they are exempt too.

I personally do not mind raising taxes in general, so when it comes to voting for tax increases on the ballot, I almost always say yes.

Edited March 9, 2020 by XRay

[Shoblongoo]

So one of two things is going to happen tonight:

1) Biden is going to blow Bernie out.

2) The story is going to be "We have a frontrunner. But its a WEAK frontrunner."
____________

Is it--bad that I'm kinda-sorta hoping now Biden blows Bernie out?

[Tryhard]

I expect Biden to win the nomination but we should know by now that Trump doesn't really have a "low" he doesn't sink to. The Republican primary in 2016 was him taking personal attacks at Rubio and Jeb, implying Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of JFK, and a "discussion" about penis size live on a political event on TV.

Expect the ads that Biden is a pedophile with Dementia to come out soon.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Tryhard

[Johann]

24 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

So one of two things is going to happen tonight:

1) Biden is going to blow Bernie out.

2) The story is going to be "We have a frontrunner. But its a WEAK frontrunner."
____________

Is it--bad that I'm kinda-sorta hoping now Biden blows Bernie out?

In the sense that it shows that Biden will probably do fine in November? Nah, it's fine. I voted Warren but after Super Tuesday, there really wasn't much of a question about who'd win the nomination. I do agree with the idea that Biden isn't especially inspiring and has a laundry list of serious flaws, but I don't think that's going to matter in November. Trump has burnt up all the good will that independent voters gave him and everything from the economy, the Corona Virus, and foreign affairs has been more fuel on the fire, with no sign of letting up. 

I may have said this before, but I anticipate a Biden presidency basically being like a Dem version of Bush 2-- disappointing/underwhelming, but barring a major fuck up like Iraq, he'll mostly be remembered for being a gaffe machine.

[Nobody]

7 hours ago, Tryhard said:

I expect Biden to win the nomination but we should know by now that Trump doesn't really have a "low" he doesn't sink to. The Republican primary in 2016 was him taking personal attacks at Rubio and Jeb, implying Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of JFK, and a "discussion" about penis size live on a political event on TV.

Expect the ads that Biden is a pedophile with Dementia to come out soon.

what's with this "biden is a pedophile" thing that some people bring up?

[Interdimensional Observer]

I'm feeling sorry for Bernie, it's sad to see such a nice old man lose, even if it's- arguably- for the best. Whatever the cause of it: establishment reactionary crackdown, concerns about electability leading to less interest in grand plans, Biden being not as aloof as Hillary leading to demographic shifts in his favor; I still feel pity for Sanders. Competition is necessary here, but like a major sporting event, it doesn't feel good when both sides are likable.

[eclipse]

9 hours ago, Johann said:

I may have said this before, but I anticipate a Biden presidency basically being like a Dem version of Bush 2-- disappointing/underwhelming, but barring a major fuck up like Iraq, he'll mostly be remembered for being a gaffe machine.

This wouldn't be too bad.  If Biden does wind up with the nomination, I hope he picks a strong VP candidate.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

On 3/9/2020 at 1:01 PM, Nobody said:

Polls are showing Biden beating Sanders by 30 points in Michigan, even though the latter won it in 2016. How the fuck is this happening?

Current results are confirming just such a Biden victory there. Hmm...

Now what could be the difference between Clinton and Biden to cause such a swing in the Bernie camp...?

[Slumber]

3 hours ago, Nobody said:

what's with this "biden is a pedophile" thing that some people bring up?

He gets very handsy with children and young women.

[Tryhard]

6 hours ago, Nobody said:

what's with this "biden is a pedophile" thing that some people bring up?

It's happened several times. Whatever he says about it the Republicans will probably just play the videos on TV by itself.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Tryhard

[Shoblongoo]

5 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

Current results are confirming just such a Biden victory there. Hmm...

Now what could be the difference between Clinton and Biden to cause such a swing in the Bernie camp...?

Clinton was a uniquely unlikeable figure that many people who otherwise vote moderate dem as a matter of political preference didn’t want to vote for, because they personally despise her.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[Slumber]

Clinton's biggest problem was how fake she was/is.

Biden, on the flip side, is very sincere... unfortunately he sincerely seems to be an asshole, but we've already elected an asshole in the last few years, so that's clearly not a barrier for people.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Slumber

[Shoblongoo]

2 hours ago, Slumber said:

Clinton's biggest problem was how fake she was/is.

Biden, on the flip side, is very sincere... unfortunately he sincerely seems to be an asshole, but  we've already elected an asshole in the last few years, so that's clearly not a barrier for people.

...well we can agree on the bolded...

______

Condolences to the Bernie-or-Bust crowd.

Now for the people actually trying to beat Trump, here's some numbers to get excited about:

  





(obligatory reminder that 10,000 votes in Michigan swings the general election) 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[XRay]

3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Clinton was a uniquely unlikeable figure that many people who otherwise vote moderate dem as a matter of political preference didn’t want to vote for, because they personally despise her.

What did she do? Outside of her handling of Lewinsky I cannot think of anything outside of politics that would make people hate her. And the email crap is overblown in my opinion, but I do not think that would make people hate her. 

Policy wise, she seems pretty moderate.

2 hours ago, Slumber said:

Clinton's biggest problem was how fake she was/is.

I do not see that as an issue. Hell, it would be even better if she is even more pliable on policy since that means she does not mind fighting for whatever cause voters want her to advance.

If she is willing champion whatever ideas the voters believe despite not fully believing it herself, that is something impressive and noble in my opinion.

[Shoblongoo]

16 minutes ago, XRay said:

What did she do? Outside of her handling of Lewinsky I cannot think of anything outside of politics that would make people hate her. And the email crap is overblown in my opinion, but I do not think that would make people hate her. 

Policy wise, she seems pretty moderate.

Policy wise: Hillary was whatever collection of poll-tested applause lines and bumper stickers her consultants told her were popular things to come out in favor of at any given point in time. And had almost nothing in the way of sincerely-held positions that she genuinely worked to advance, or wouldn't flip on a dime if presented with a new poll.

And policy was almost an afterthought with Hillary to begin with. As she spent most of her political career soliciting donations to the Clinton Foundation from persons trying to garner influence with senior government officials, cashing out on speaking fees and book deals, and generally just making bank on monetarizing her office rather than actually trying to--well--advance policy.

Hillary Clinton was basically a walking caricature of everything people outside of Washington hate about career politicians. 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[Zapp Branniglenn]

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Policy wise: Hillary was whatever collection of poll-tested applause lines and bumper stickers her consultants told her were popular things to come out in favor of at any given point in time. And had almost nothing in the way of sincerely-held positions that she genuinely worked to advance, or wouldn't flip on a dime if presented with a new poll.
 

Yeah, God forbid politicians flip on issues that become popular. Or that she flip on policies her husband signed into office a whole generation ago like Don't Ask Don't Tell which was relentlessly thrown in her face four years ago. I know a lot of people her age that really would only flip on the "gay thing" when their job demanded it. And that was the appeal of moderates anyway - they were willing to budge and compromise. In a pre-trump world that was the key quality to have. Excuse me for not trusting in the dude who wasn't even a registered democrat. Third party candidates had a history of spoiling elections, I didn't think it made a difference whether they wore sheep's clothing. If you wanted to talk about how "fake" somebody was. 

The margin by which Hillary won the primary is even larger than her popular vote lead on trump in the general, so what I object to the most is that she "couldn't unite the party". The most popular presidential candidate in history is Obama in 2008. The second, well, it's not Trump.

3 hours ago, XRay said:

What did she do? Outside of her handling of Lewinsky I cannot think of anything outside of politics that would make people hate her. And the email crap is overblown in my opinion, but I do not think that would make people hate her. 

She was a woman. People don't trust women in power - mostly white women if exit polls are to be believed. It was like that viral video of a woman hoping to take her vote back when she learned Buttigieg was gay, except those clips were turned into a real discussion of "do women have the temperament for such a high office". The first candidate to make it to the General that was a woman wasn't just some happy trivia, it was the deal breaker for the worst kind of people. There was also a hell of a smear campaign about her emails - an apparent offense Trump's campaign commits that nobody cares about. It got more popular than the Benghazi conspiracy theories. A lot of trump supporters smugly said to my face they heard she's going to jail in 2016 in that first week, even though they couldn't answer the question "but what did she DO?"

All the policy concerns about Clinton just became white noise after the primary. The Bernie or Bust crowd stayed home or flocked to Trump and whats-her-face green party candidate like they said they would. Because surprise surprise policy doesn't matter as much as "owning the libs" and/or claiming you have "voter integrity".

[eclipse]

4 hours ago, XRay said:

And the email crap is overblown in my opinion, but I do not think that would make people hate her.

I didn't have anything against her, personally.  But that e-mail thing is what did it.  Namely, if she can't properly secure an e-mail server, there's no way in hell I'd trust her with national cybersecurity.

Not that I trusted Trump any more than that (hence why neither got my vote).

[Shoblongoo]

28 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I didn't have anything against her, personally.  But that e-mail thing is what did it.  Namely, if she can't properly secure an e-mail server, there's no way in hell I'd trust her with national cybersecurity.

Not that I trusted Trump any more than that (hence why neither got my vote).

Less She couldn't secure an e-mail server.

More She was very obviously intermingling public state department business with private clinton foundation fundraising and using a private server to evade public recordkeeping requirements

And that wouldn't have even been as damaging as it was if Hillary didn't have a pre-existing reputation for dishonesty and impropriety to play into. 

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[eclipse]

1 minute ago, Shoblongoo said:

Less She couldn't secure an e-mail server.

More She was very obviously intermingling public state department business with private clinton foundation fundraising and using a private server to evade public recordkeeping requirements

And that wouldn't have even been as damaging as it was if Hillary didn't have a pre-existing reputation for dishonesty and impropriety to play into. 

 

In other words, if you're going to break the law, at least be competent about doing it.

For me, securing networks is something that I care about deeply.  It didn't help that our country has already taken part in some seriously questionable things on the cyberwar front.  At best, she'd continue what Obama did, which I don't necessarily approve of.  At worst, she'd screw it up even further, and something like Stuxnet would be available to the underground due to someone being careless.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

25 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Less She couldn't secure an e-mail server.

More She was very obviously intermingling public state department business with private clinton foundation fundraising and using a private server to evade public recordkeeping requirements

If you can show me proof that donators to the foundation were receiving political favors, then I'll agree that's an issue. It still wouldn't compare to the open quid pro quo policy making of our current administration, but it'd at least be relevant. As is though, that was just smear speculation.

Quote

And that wouldn't have even been as damaging as it was if Hillary didn't have a pre-existing reputation for dishonesty and impropriety to play into. 

Politicians have histories. You gotta be 35 years old and, in a pre-trump world, have a considerable background in politics to be president. Anybody with a "clean slate" is just somebody we don't know enough about yet. And when I think about skeletons in the closet, I like to wait until there's actual evidence of wrongdoing before drudging it up.

[Shoblongoo]

21 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

still wouldn't compare to the open quid pro quo policy making of our current administration, but it'd at least be relevant.

Hey you don't have to convince me--I held my nose and voted for her.

The only good thing I could say about Hillary Clinton is "she isn't Donald Trump."  But that was enough. 

[XRay]

6 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

And policy was almost an afterthought with Hillary to begin with. As she spent most of her political career soliciting donations to the Clinton Foundation from persons trying to garner influence with senior government officials, cashing out on speaking fees and book deals, and generally just making bank on monetarizing her office rather than actually trying to--well--advance policy.

I am pretty sure she did lots of things, although I do not remember anything super major.

She helped Obama on the TPP agreement which Trump fucked over. I do not remember what she did as secretary of state, but she seems to have Obama's back and we did not have any major incidents in terms foreign diplomacy.

I dug up a Politco article on Google and here is what she has achieved. None of it looks super important and headline catching like Obamacare, but it is something. Maybe the list is not as long or as revolutionary as people would like, but she did put in work.

I agree that accepting lots of donations from wealthy people is not a good look though.

3 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

She was a woman. People don't trust women in power - mostly white women if exit polls are to be believed. It was like that viral video of a woman hoping to take her vote back when she learned Buttigieg was gay, except those clips were turned into a real discussion of "do women have the temperament for such a high office". The first candidate to make it to the General that was a woman wasn't just some happy trivia, it was the deal breaker for the worst kind of people. There was also a hell of a smear campaign about her emails - an apparent offense Trump's campaign commits that nobody cares about. It got more popular than the Benghazi conspiracy theories. A lot of trump supporters smugly said to my face they heard she's going to jail in 2016 in that first week, even though they couldn't answer the question "but what did she DO?"

Do people really dislike the idea of having a women president? We got women on both sides of the aisle in various government offices, although Democrats do have more women in elected positions in general, and I guess men still outnumber women in general for elected positions.

3 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

All the policy concerns about Clinton just became white noise after the primary. The Bernie or Bust crowd stayed home or flocked to Trump and whats-her-face green party candidate like they said they would. Because surprise surprise policy doesn't matter as much as "owning the libs" and/or claiming you have "voter integrity".

Assuming Bernie supporters were mostly young people, the young people did not even come out enough to vote for him. I think like out of all the Democratic voters who showed up and vote, only 13% of them are 30 something or younger.

2 hours ago, eclipse said:

I didn't have anything against her, personally.  But that e-mail thing is what did it.  Namely, if she can't properly secure an e-mail server, there's no way in hell I'd trust her with national cybersecurity.

Not that I trusted Trump any more than that (hence why neither got my vote).

The email things sounds like a mishap rather than something intentional. Humans are not perfect. I agree it would not look good on anyone's resume, but I do not think it is something unforgivable or something that automatically disqualifies a person.

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Less She couldn't secure an e-mail server.

More She was very obviously intermingling public state department business with private clinton foundation fundraising and using a private server to evade public recordkeeping requirements

And that wouldn't have even been as damaging as it was if Hillary didn't have a pre-existing reputation for dishonesty and impropriety to play into. 

I did not thought of it that way, but did she really intermingle public and private business to evade documentation?

[Slumber]

8 hours ago, XRay said:

I do not see that as an issue. Hell, it would be even better if she is even more pliable on policy since that means she does not mind fighting for whatever cause voters want her to advance.

If she is willing champion whatever ideas the voters believe despite not fully believing it herself, that is something impressive and noble in my opinion.

I'm not even talking about her policies, I'm talking about her as a person.

Between her bad attempts to connect with the youth(Her "Pokemon GO to the polls!" line) and her pulling out hot sauce on The Breakfast Club was uh... it was pretty uncomfortable.

There's a level of fakeness people tolerate in politicians when it comes to their public personas, and Hillary crossed it more times than not. At a certain point, you just come across as desperate and unlikable. Pete Buttigieg got raked across the coals for his fakeness in this election, and his path forward after New Hampshire was pretty dire, even though policy wise he wasn't too far off from the current frontrunner.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Slumber

[UNLEASH IT]

I hope Sanders drops out now. The longer he runs, the more fractured democrats will be in November

[Nobody]

5 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

Yeah, God forbid politicians flip on issues that become popular. Or that she flip on policies her husband signed into office a whole generation ago like Don't Ask Don't Tell which was relentlessly thrown in her face four years ago. I know a lot of people her age that really would only flip on the "gay thing" when their job demanded it. And that was the appeal of moderates anyway - they were willing to budge and compromise. In a pre-trump world that was the key quality to have.

Yeah, I don't really understand why nowadays people put so much stock into what the politicians "truly believe", rather than what they will actually do in office. I don't give a fuck if a politician is enacting/pushing a policy because they believe in it or if the reason is merely because the electorate wants it. In the end what matters is what is being done. It's completely natural that politicians do what the population wants them to do.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Nobody