General US Politics

[eclipse]

Libel laws make sense. If the media has the sources to prove that if it provided false information, it did so without malice of intent due to a honest mistake, then libel laws shouldn't be an issue for them.

I opened up all of dondon's links, and have a new hatred of Time because of auto-play videos. But that's a rant for another topic.

Of the links, the PBS one is the most neutral, IMO. Furthermore, quoting yourself about how media is a scam is NOT how to counter such accusations. Instead, read the articles - they'll most likely source where they got the quotes from (in this case, a rally in Texas on February 26, and an interview with Fox News on February 27). Find the transcripts/videos, and see whether or not the newspaper took some sound bytes out of the speech to make a headline, or whether Trump actually meant it in the way that the newspapers wrote.

However, the Atlantic probably has the most damning evidence against Trump. Lawsuits are public information, and the fact that Trump has so many started by himself is worrying. It tells me that he'll take the nuclear option when he feels he's offended. . .and that's a terrible quality to have as a leader, especially in diplomacy.

[Lord Raven]

Yes, and the current setup is exactly what you're describing tuvarkz. If you can prove that they intentionally lied about you in order to shame you, then you win the case. This was actually a Supreme Court ruling and this precedent has not yet been challenged.

The idea is to expand this concept beyond the basics. If you honestly think that is anything other than Trump trying to protect himself from public criticism then you are again failing to see why this is an issue.

Anyway I'm too lazy to respond to the people who responded to me on Thursday cause I was really busy the past few days, but other people said the stuff I'd say but far better (I'm looking at you, my homeboy Phoenix Wright).

[tuvarkz]

That's still curbing free speech, and anyone can make the claim that someone said something with false information in it. Our courts aren't as friendly to that kind of thing as they should be, especially if they say things about the POTUS that is not false but the POTUS doesn't like to hear and goes after them on the grounds that it's false.

Let's not talk about the less wealthy people who can be targeted for this and will not win any of these libel suits. For instance, he has specifically mentioned he hates certain newspapers and media outlets for digging very deep into his background and his current wealth (which has a lot of very inconsistent information about it) - this includes the New York Times - and he threatens to sue them for saying that they're talking down on him despite them making a conclusion based on actual research on him.

You're actually kidding if you think that holding the media accountable is not curbing free speech. It's very clear - based on things he's said, mind you - that he's doing it with the intention that he should not be held accountable for his actions and would sue the shit out of people who criticize him.

The whole idea is to make it much easier to sue news organizations, which goes against the first amendment.

Except that Trump will have no actual reason to go on a witchhunt after he's elected?

In an event of a Trump presidency, there's three outcomes:

-He does nothing to change the status quo (Whether out of his own will or because the Congress/Senate block his every action). He will be considered a failure (Because his whole campaign premise rode on getting stuff done differently) and nothing he does will net him a chance at recovery.

-He does stuff, and it goes horribly wrong. Same case as above.

-He does stuff, it goes amazingly well, and he will probably have the re-election in the bag, no matter what the media says.

Simply put, the media will be unable to harm Trump in any way after he's elected.

And it's not just about Trump what the media needs to be accountable for, it's a big wide range of issues. Additionally, you mention the NY Times, which is rated above a billion dollars of worth. I don't think they count as small.

I opened up all of dondon's links, and have a new hatred of Time because of auto-play videos. But that's a rant for another topic.

Of the links, the PBS one is the most neutral, IMO. Furthermore, quoting yourself about how media is a scam is NOT how to counter such accusations. Instead, read the articles - they'll most likely source where they got the quotes from (in this case, a rally in Texas on February 26, and an interview with Fox News on February 27). Find the transcripts/videos, and see whether or not the newspaper took some sound bytes out of the speech to make a headline, or whether Trump actually meant it in the way that the newspapers wrote.

However, the Atlantic probably has the most damning evidence against Trump. Lawsuits are public information, and the fact that Trump has so many started by himself is worrying. It tells me that he'll take the nuclear option when he feels he's offended. . .and that's a terrible quality to have as a leader, especially in diplomacy.

I didn't quote myself to try and reinforce the point that media was a scam. I did it to counter the fact that dondon had argued that nothing of what I said had anything to do with his post.

To note, I've been seeing Trump rallies quite often during December-February (And staying up quite late to watch some until the end a few times). I will need to check my history logs to see if I missed both that rally and the Fox News interview, but I will do so as soon as I have some free time. But, insofar as I've heard, I haven't heard anything from Trump's events that would suggest he'd go for personal attacks against him.

EDIT: Went and checked the Fox News interview up until the libel laws part, and although it is related to personal attacks, there's also an important point: They are making said statements as objective news, not as opinion pieces; and I could very well see malice of intent (in order to sell more) in the same way as ads get sometimes disguised as articles.

So yes, this decision appears to be quite influenced by Trump's ego, but I cannot defend the media for what I find to be rather dislikeable actions. (And on the other hand I wonder why something that could quite as much be a hotspot for clickbait media such as Ted Cruz's alleged sex scandal (even if some of the stuff seems pretty damning) doesn't seem to be covered by many major news sites after a google search)

Edited April 9, 2016 by tuvarkz

[Lord Raven]

Except that Trump will have no actual reason to go on a witchhunt after he's elected?

In an event of a Trump presidency, there's three outcomes:

-He does nothing to change the status quo (Whether out of his own will or because the Congress/Senate block his every action). He will be considered a failure (Because his whole campaign premise rode on getting stuff done differently) and nothing he does will net him a chance at recovery.

-He does stuff, and it goes horribly wrong. Same case as above.

-He does stuff, it goes amazingly well, and he will probably have the re-election in the bag, no matter what the media says.

Simply put, the media will be unable to harm Trump in any way after he's elected.

This applies to literally every president. The reason he'd want to go on a witch hunt is to ensure a second term. During his second term, it's going to be linked to his ego moreso than any political reasoning.

And it's not just about Trump what the media needs to be accountable for, it's a big wide range of issues. Additionally, you mention the NY Times, which is rated above a billion dollars of worth. I don't think they count as small.

So therefore they don't count...

So yes, this decision appears to be quite influenced by Trump's ego, but I cannot defend the media for what I find to be rather dislikeable actions. (And on the other hand I wonder why something that could quite as much be a hotspot for clickbait media such as Ted Cruz's alleged sex scandal (even if some of the stuff seems pretty damning) doesn't seem to be covered by many major news sites after a google search)

We're not defending media necessarily, especially since the main news sources are really pretty bad (especially fox news, which is bad to the extent of it being a strawman example). Imagine journalists in local papers or something getting caught by these libel laws and they got their ass sued by Trump, the ones that can't afford it. That's what I'd be more worried about.

[tuvarkz]

This applies to literally every president. The reason he'd want to go on a witch hunt is to ensure a second term. During his second term, it's going to be linked to his ego moreso than any political reasoning.

So therefore they don't count...

We're not defending media necessarily, especially since the main news sources are really pretty bad (especially fox news, which is bad to the extent of it being a strawman example). Imagine journalists in local papers or something getting caught by these libel laws and they got their ass sued by Trump, the ones that can't afford it. That's what I'd be more worried about.

Trump's not going to have a second term if he doesn't do great. Any failures are not only going to be nitpicked at by the Democrats, but by the Republican establishment as well. Heck, at best in this election he'll have a teeth-clenched cooperation from the GOP after winning the nomination (If he does). Because he's a populist, if he fails he'll crash and burn hard.

And if he does great as a president, he'll have the election in the bag. Not only the voters from his first term would more than likely vote again, more swing-voters would end up on his side leading, naturally, to a bigger win.

NY Times count as a potential target, I'm just saying that they do have the means to establish a legal defense and have a good chance at winning against a false libel accusation.

About local papers, I couldn't really say, as insofar Trump has only brought up the names of what seem to be the bigger newspapers. Or has he specifically mentioned small, local ones and I've missed it? Information on this would be appreciated.

[Phoenix Wright]

I'm not entirely sure which table you are speaking of specifically, it's either the one here, or the table from page 27 of the United States Government Accountability Office.

About them "Experts," (immigrationpolicy.org) the data that they were relying on is inherently flawed and cannot be trusted.

This pdf highlights in excessive detail why the census data they used to justify their assertion is unreliable. I can go into more detail if you like, but I'd mostly just be quoting from the pdf.

it's pg 21, and yeah i meant that table. and what i mean is, i couldn't find it on fbi.gov (or even the number itself). but regardless, what's the claim here, that mexicans commit more crimes than american citizens? well, if one assumes not the national average, but local crime rates in cities with lots of poor people, you'll find rates that are similar in orders of mag. mexicans aren't more violent, undocumented immigrants aren't more violent, whites aren't more violent. poor people, generally speaking, are more violent. and there's a lot of reasons for that, but i suppose that may be off-topic. and so i can understand why you'd want to keep poor people out of the country (though i fundamentally don't agree with the sentiment).

but at the end of the day, the solutions posed by conservative think-tanks aren't long-term or even long-lasting. they can't be enforced readily or efficiently. they're dehumanizing and childish, and championed by a man-child. what i'd like to know is what's so wrong with restructuring immigration policy? what's wrong with attempting to help those who immigrate here assimilate and prosper? i don't see the "true" american perspective (ie, melting pot mentality) in wanting to keep immigrants out, even though it's been a feeling many americans have had for over a hundred years (with europeans, asians, etc.). the language that right-wing politicians use sounds more of anti-immigrant and anti-immigration as opposed to pro.

tuvarks you never responded: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=56082&page=64#entry4321573

Edited April 9, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Person123]

it's pg 21, and yeah i meant that table. and what i mean is, i couldn't find it on fbi.gov (or even the number itself). but regardless, what's the claim here, that mexicans commit more crimes than american citizens? well, if one assumes not the national average, but local crime rates in cities with lots of poor people, you'll find rates that are similar in orders of mag. mexicans aren't more violent, undocumented immigrants aren't more violent, whites aren't more violent. poor people, generally speaking, are more violent. and there's a lot of reasons for that, but i suppose that may be off-topic. and so i can understand why you'd want to keep poor people out of the country (though i fundamentally don't agree with the sentiment).

My claim is that illegal immigrants are a disproportionately large source of crime compared to other demographics, and that the article you linked relied on poor data. As quoted from this PDF,

"The poor quality of data used in the PPIC and IPC studies is illustrated by wild and implausible swings. It shows a 28 percent decline in incarcerated immigrants 1990 to 2000 — yet the overall immigrant population grew 59 percent. Newer Census data from 2007 show a 146 percent increase in immigrant incarceration 2000 to 2007 — yet, the overall immigrant population grew only 22 percent."

I'll fully admit there's not a whole lot of good data to rely on WRT illegal immigration crime rates. The PDF I shared above gets into the specific reasons why that is. That sort of stuff contributes heavily as to why illegal immigration remains such a contentious issue.

Concerning your "keeping poor people out" comment, that's not at all what I'm asserting. There's a lot of economic reasons why illegal immigration's such a big deal, especially when you get into stuff like amnesty. It's also pretty unfair to immigrants who go through the effort of immigrating legally. The primary reason why I bought up illegal immigration in the first place is to provide an example why Trump's policies appeal to some people for legitimate reasons. There's a pretty big reason his support among minorities is particularly high.

what i'd like to know is what's so wrong with restructuring immigration policy? what's wrong with attempting to help those who immigrate here assimilate and prosper? i don't see the "true" american perspective (ie, melting pot mentality) in wanting to keep immigrants out, even though it's been a feeling many americans have had for over a hundred years (with europeans, asians, etc.). the language that right-wing politicians use sounds more of anti-immigrant and anti-immigration as opposed to pro.

There's nothing at all wrong with restructuring policy, in fact that's particularly important. Don't forget, illegal immigrants are being taken advantage of; they get paid shit wages and many are forced to live a life of poverty. Putting a stop/slowing down illegal immigration's only one part of it. If the process behind immigrating legally is cleaned up, people won't be forced to do so illegally; and get taken advantage of because of it.

I haven't looked into the immigration policies of the other Republican candidates closely (I kinda wrote off their chances of winning ages ago. Fairly sure Clinton will secure the nomination on the Democrat side as well.) but in an interview Trump had with Jake Tapper, he even suggested something that sounds pretty similar to touchback amnesty (The right really hammered him over that one.) Granted, he was very vague about the specifics, which is a pretty big issue. If you're curious you can read more about that here and make your own conclusions.

[BBM]

I can't see why a republican would ever want to nominate Trump. The downside is so massive. Forget getting elected; if he even gets nominated and it ends up being a total disaster; that'll be a stain for years to come and your party will be fractured forever. If Cruz gets nominated, well, he won't win, but at least he'll just be a regular bad candidate.

[Person123]

The situation with the Republican party is actually pretty interesting. On one hand there's Donald Trump, and it's pretty clear the Republican "powers that be" despise him. That said, they're not particularly fond of Cruz either. Cruz has done a lot of silly things that have caused some issues within the party; for example, he's the one who spearheaded that whole "government shutdown" nonsense back in 2013.

And then we have Kasich, the man who's fourth place in a 3 way race; it's also worth mentioning that he requires more delegates that are even left in order to secure the 1237 needed to clinch the nomination.

The Republican establishment really REALLY wants Trump to be unable to secure the 1237 to claim the nomination, so that they can have their contested convention; but much to their dismay he's the one with the most voter support, and is leading in the delegate count.

In order for Cruz to secure the nomination, he requires somewhere around 80% of the remaining delegates, something that seems almost impossible; especially considering the upcoming Republican primaries. Last I checked, Trump was polling 56% in New York. If Trump performs as well as that poll indicates in most or all of the congressional districts in New York, he could win almost every single delegate there; which would be a disaster for Cruz.

Anyways, if you want to know how a contested or "brokered" convention works you can read this. however, do know that the delegate numbers they mentioned in the article are a bit older.

It's important to note that the RNG committee finalizes the rules ahead of time, which basically means fuck the rules.

Now because the Republican Establishment hates Trump, it's very likely he won't get the nomination if there's a contested convention.

They could give it to Kasich, or even anyone really if it makes it to second ballot. It's basically a complicated mess. Anyways, if they do that it could very well be the death knell of the Republican party, since doing so essentially says "fuck the voters."

They hate Trump, so I don't think they'd give it to him, but it IS possible if he works some sorcery or something.

Now they could give it to Cruz, the problem is that the Republican establishment hates him too. Anyways, Cruz is pretty unelectable on his own, since he has limited appeal. Also, from what I understand, a solid 35% of Trump supporters would refuse to consolidate behind Cruz if Trump gets shafted in a brokered convention.

So basically the Republican establishment is a tight spot. I'm very interested in seeing how this will all turn out. many won't think so but it's pretty fun to watch, personally.

If you wanted my guess, I think Trump will indeed secure the 1237 delegates needed to claim the nomination. If he doesn't, I'm betting that Cruz would get the nomination in a contested convention. In other words Hillary wins.

[Alertcircuit]

Kasich could be the best shot the GOP have at winning the election, but there's not enough support for him to motivate the delegates to switch over in the case of a contested convention. If Trump doesn't get the 1237 it's going to Cruz. I've seen speculation that they might go "fuck it" and give it to Paul Ryan, but that just seems like a fantasy. They're definitely going to go for someone who's running, unless something really weird happens.

[Person123]

I really don't think the Republican party as we know it can survive this election. I'm very interested in seeing how everything will turn out.

Zany stuff goin down in Colorado. http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/trump-erupts-as-cruz-sweeps-colorado-without-votes/

Definitely the most entertaining Election I've experienced.

Edited April 11, 2016 by General Ciraxis

[ClevelandSteve]

I really don't think the Republican party as we know it can survive this election.

I hope this election shatters the Republican Party. And not just because I don't like them. I want the Democratic Party to break up, too. Honestly, if there's one thing that most people regardless of ideology can agree on, it's that America would greatly benefit from both major parties fracturing apart. The Democrats could break into a centrist "Obama and Hillary" Party and a left-wing "Warren and Sanders" Party, while the Republicans break into a "moderate" Establishment Party and a far-right Trump/Tea Party.

Of course, American Politics are built to function with no more than two major parties (Ironic considering the existence of political parties isn't enshrined in the Constitution and some of the Founding Fathers, most notably George Washington, despised the very idea of them). So, we'd need a few Constitutional amendments to fix things. For example, as it stands, if no candidate gets more than 50% of the electoral votes then Congress gets to decide the presidential election (House picks the President, Senate picks the Vice President). With three or four major parties, the odds of this happening every single election would be pretty high. If the Electoral College isn't done away with entirely, we'd at least need to amend the Constitution so that whoever has the most electoral votes, regardless of if it's greater than 50%, becomes President.

[Phoenix Wright]

that's even worse, imo. i don't want plurality presidents.

we know better systems than fptp. if politicians can campaign long before they ever actually should (in some cases after a year in office), i'm much more than ok with voting being a longer, more complex system as long as it's kept fair (lots of time given to vote, voters aren't turned away or pressured to vote for particular candidates, etc.).

there's the alt. vote process, or the condorcet method that can be applied to av.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Crysta]

Ironically the Democratic party has all but castrated a potential grassroots activist party from getting the nomination via the creation of the super delegates so I suspect it's going to be much more difficult for them to be cracked up from the inside. It'll have to come from the outside. I think there's a much greater likelihood of someone running as an independent and stealing all their support.

The Republicans will survive - they'll just be significantly smaller than they were before.

[Ansem]

What is a super delegate? Hilary has a lot more of those, but the actual delegate count between her and Sanders are really really close. Are super delegates establishment politicians or something?

[Phoenix Wright]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

they're the big boys and girls of the democratic party that get to vote for a candidate based on what they want, regardless of what the people want.

[Person123]

Has anyone checked out the Missouri primary results yet?

Vote count on both sides is impressively close.

Edit: Ahahaha, the GOP's bullshit's finally starting to catch up to them.

Edited April 13, 2016 by General Ciraxis

[Alertcircuit]

What is a super delegate? Hilary has a lot more of those, but the actual delegate count between her and Sanders are really really close. Are super delegates establishment politicians or something?

So of course there's the regular delegates candidates get by winning state primaries, but Superdelegates are a little different. Like you said, they're essentially establishment politicians like congressmen or past presidents who get to vote for the nominee with the regular delegates. After George McGovern lost to Nixon and Jimmy Carter failed to get a second term, the DNC implemented the system so the establishment personally had a hand in helping pick a candidate with the best chance at winning the general. This generally hurts grassroots politicians, and there's a lot of controversy about how the practice is undemocratic.

They generally go with who they think are gonna win. For example, in 2008 most superdelegates supported Hillary, but once Obama started winning primaries and they realized he was as strong a candidate if not stronger, they switched over. The hope for Bernie supporters is that sometime between now and June the superdelegates realize Bernie's the more viable candidate.

Edit: Ahahaha, the GOP's bullshit's finally starting to catch up to them.

If the nominee is someone besides Trump and Cruz that could be a big deal.

[Person123]

Unless he gets assassinated or some shit, Trump will be the next President.

Feel free to call me out if/when I'm wrong in the future.

[Phoenix Wright]

So of course there's the regular delegates candidates get by winning state primaries, but Superdelegates are a little different. Like you said, they're essentially establishment politicians like congressmen or past presidents who get to vote for the nominee with the regular delegates. After George McGovern lost to Nixon and Jimmy Carter failed to get a second term, the DNC implemented the system so the establishment personally had a hand in helping pick a candidate with the best chance at winning the general. This generally hurts grassroots politicians, and there's a lot of controversy about how the practice is undemocratic.

They generally go with who they think are gonna win. For example, in 2008 most superdelegates supported Hillary, but once Obama started winning primaries and they realized he was as strong a candidate if not stronger, they switched over. The hope for Bernie supporters is that sometime between now and June the superdelegates realize Bernie's the more viable candidate.

If the nominee is someone besides Trump and Cruz that could be a big deal.

the problem is obama is much more of a pro-establishment candidate than sanders. sanders has been anti-establishment his entire life, and it's very much the reason everyone is rooting for his failure. perhaps the people are ready for a man of the people (i am sure young republicans would rather have sanders over clinton), but everyone else sure isn't.

ok ciraxis, will do.

[Person123]

I wonder how people will feel about Trump once he secures the Republican nomination and slides towards centrism. Should be interesting, assuming he does secure the nomination, in any case.

Gonna make an edit and leave this here.

Edited April 14, 2016 by General Ciraxis

[Crysta]

sanders needs to pass clinton in pledged delegates or get closer before he can hope to successfully woo superdelegates to his side. it's really not the same thing as what the republicans are attempting to do with trump, who is running away with the race by a wide margin.

"but he's won so many states in a row!" doesn't really matter; wyoming isn't california. i know she's buoyed with more minority support and that's helped her in the south and in the bigger states, but they still... well, count. the superdelegates are stupid but the pledged delegates should matter.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Crysta

[BBM]

the problem is obama is much more of a pro-establishment candidate than sanders. sanders has been anti-establishment his entire life, and it's very much the reason everyone is rooting for his failure. perhaps the people are ready for a man of the people (i am sure young republicans would rather have sanders over clinton), but everyone else sure isn't.

ok ciraxis, will do.

To add onto this and what Alertcircuit said; it was a lot of the black Democrat superdelegates that switched when they saw Obama was viable. Sanders doesn't have an easy superdelegate grab like that.

[Person123]

Is anyone else amazed we actually have Trump supporters on SF? I'm all for free speech and the right to have one own viewpoint - but I definitely thought we were all more open minded and critical of that

Quoted for irony

Trump is clearly a fucking idiot who has no idea what he's talking about, and he's not gonna do anything dangerous in office except fart around and do nothing.

I must have missed when you posted this back when I was catching up with this thread.

Take a look at this article and read through it. It's your typical media nonsense where they take something Trump said, and spin reality around to fit their narrative.

Take a good look at the date the article was published.

Edited April 15, 2016 by General Ciraxis

[Lord Raven]

Quoted for irony

I know media spins everything anyone says, but that doesn't make his attitude any less toxic nor does it nullify the rest of what I've said.

If you're saying it's ironic for me to be close minded towards the idea of Trump running this country - then I don't see your point, considering he appeals to exactly the sort of close minded and uncritical person that should not run this country. Open mindedness doesn't necessarily mean I have to tolerate someone with Trump's talking points being president.

If you're saying it's uncritical of me to talk about Trump like he's fearmongering and appealing to racists - then I don't see your point. I'm not one to criticize every little thing Trump says without context, especially since I don't care what he thinks about Belgium, so please enlighten me with something other than one specific example.

If you're about to bring up the Mexicans thing, then again I don't see the point just because I said that instead of calling all Mexicans rapists he called Mexican immigrants rapists. Which is still pretty fucked up considering that there are a good number of productive Mexican immigrants in the country too. Building a wall or something to that extent despite lacking good data (which your discussion with Phoenix Wright concerned, by the way, that it's very hard to document crime data from illegal immigrants) is extremely reactionary at best.

I wonder how people will feel about Trump once he secures the Republican nomination and slides towards centrism. Should be interesting, assuming he does secure the nomination, in any case.

The weird thing is that this is what I suspect he would do if he snags the nomination, considering he's had many interviews over the years where he declares he's a moderate that thinks both democrats and republicans are wrong (which I am inclined to agree with him on).

The reason I'm hating on him is because not only is he a wild card but the things he says appeals to exactly the kind of person that would hold this country back. I personally don't care how "creepy" some of these candidates may or may not seem because Clinton was lecherous as fuck but he's still viewed as a great president. I agree that he's given an unfair shake in the media from a personal standpoint and somehow that reflects on his presidential ability - which I believe applies to just about everyone - but I'm also not going to say "oh because he was moderate in the past, all of this really stupid and racist shit he says is okay by me because who knows what he's gonna do!"

I still don't know if he knows much about how to do anything as president which is why I ultimately think he'll spend his time farting around no matter what his viewpoint ends up being.

This is voting a complete wild card - who has shown no sense of actual policy making, possibly no knowledge of foreign policy, and basically nothing that shows me that he can do anything political ON TOP OF expressed beliefs that are extremely racist, and somehow appeals to a lot of really racist people - into office. Whether or not he is in actuality a racist? I can't say, I don't really know the guy, but all I can judge in terms of his presidency is the rhetoric that he places into his speeches that incites a sense of hatred towards others from the people around him. And if he were to somehow switch to a moderate after winning the nomination? That would be a surprise - but I still have a ton of gripes with his lack of experience and most importantly the path he took to get there.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Lord Raven