The General US Politics Thread

Well, I'll eat my words if he does actually endorse her. I'm not really counting on it though because I get the feeling that what he's doing now is in lieu of an actual endorsement.

Still though, if he actually is supporting her (if only in a Never Trump) sense and wants his supporters to do likewise, then he should make an actual endorsement.

Because as long as he stays in the race, he sends the message that he's still a candidate and his suporters shouldn't support Clinton (I also think based on Twitter- I know- that it feeds the idea that Clinton stole the race from him).

@the globalization article: Well, if Bloomberg says it, you know it must be a big deal. Now we just need to wait for the WSJ to start reprinting that graph.

Those who say it's a scathing indictment of current economic elite thinking are correct; the problem is that the isolationist response is not going to help. Only redistributive policies can fix it without abandoning the modern global economy.

edited 29th Jun '16 11:31:34 AM by Fighteer

"U.S. legal group lavishes praise on Obama Supreme Court nominee" - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N19D29Y

For all the good it's likely to do...

edited 29th Jun '16 11:31:37 AM by sgamer82

Garland has been picked for experience and qualifications, yes.

And being a devout centrist likely to uphold citizen's United and the more odious components of the TPP, among other judicial triumphs of the neoliberal era/

edited 29th Jun '16 11:41:34 AM by CaptainCapsase

Objection, Your Honor — assumes facts not in evidence.

The only context in which Garland is considered conservative is law enforcement, from what I know. I'd like to see citations on the Citizens United claims as well.

FiveThirtyEight - opening odds of Trump winning general election 20-25% according to their models (20% polls-only, 25% factoring in historical variables).

Those odds need to be smaller.

Is that a declarative or imperative statement?

In the negative percentages, perhaps?

Both, I suspect.

edited 29th Jun '16 12:09:28 PM by Greenmantle

Oh, by the way, how's Black Lives Matter doing?

@Fighteer: He's not in favor of going further than Citizen's United, but his arbitration was part of the rise of Super PACs. In short, he's a true conservative, much like Clinton. (as opposed to the reactionary madness of the current GOP)

edited 29th Jun '16 12:16:20 PM by CaptainCapsase

Black kids are still getting shot by police, so still shit.

I'm not averse to a genuine conservative voice on the Court; it's supposed to represent a bastion of stability. As it stands, there don't seem to be any grounds to overturn Citizens United at the Supreme Court, under the general principle of deference to precedent. Once SCOTUS decides on something, it takes a rather extreme circumstance for them to change their minds later.

The push really needs to come from the Constitutional angle.

Yep, and notice how Clinton has more or less stopped talking about criminal justice reform? I Long for the day when the entire working class, black and white and otherwise come to the realization that both of the parties (on an institutional basis, not an individual basis) have no interest in helping them, and every interest in maintaining the stark ethnic divisions among the lower class in order to keep the working class disunified and fighting among itself rather than demanding better treatment from societal elites.

It's too late to shut the door on activist justices. Embracing it wholeheartedly is one of the only ways a president might be able to break out of the effective deadlock.

edited 29th Jun '16 12:25:15 PM by CaptainCapsase

Hillary hasn't stopped talking about it. Considering how there's about a million and one issues going on, and how many she's been addressing, she can't talk about one issue all the time. She's still very firm on fixing the way cops treat minorities.

And I really want to address all the problems with your statement about both parties stepping on minorities to "keep them from paying attention to the real problems", but I'm not awake enough right now.

And I long for the days when the cult of centrism is a distant memory and people are capable of making rational, objective analysis of political positions rather than relying on political nihilism disguised as enlightened post-party thinking or knee-jerk identity politics.

But neither of us are going to get our wish any time soon.

The idea that both sides are as bad as each other — which is ultimately rooted in the idea that government is fundamentally illegitimate on a basic level, an idea pushed by the Republican party so they can paint themselves as the saviors here to rescue the common people from evil Democratic nanny state coming to take your precious freedoms — is the most harmful thing that the Republicans have managed to get people to believe.

edited 29th Jun '16 12:32:35 PM by NativeJovian

, Fanning the flames of racial tensions was a major part of the US intelligence community's pogrom against leftists during the 50's. Much like our foreign policy, what has changed is not the government's grand strategy but what the public is willing to put up with.

I'd also like to add that, under current circumstances, with a nativist populist demagogue overtaking the GOP, the democrats are the obvious choice; "both parties are the same" is something that's historically been true of the American parties in eras of stability, but not in periods of crisis, where they can and have diverged quite dramatically.

edited 29th Jun '16 12:34:24 PM by CaptainCapsase

You're making an awfully big claim there without citing anything to prove that's what's happening NOW. You do that an AWFUL LOT. And as was already stated, Clinton has to talk about a hundred and one issue. She's addressed criminal reform, and most of us expect her to do so in the future. Especially since she's likely to be asked about it in the future. Just because she's speaking about something else currently doesn't mean that criminal reform has stopped being a concern for her; you're pulling stuff out of thin air.

And no, "Both parties are the same" is bullshit. Doesn't matter if things are "stable" the parties are still pursuing different things quite frequently.

edited 29th Jun '16 12:34:08 PM by AceofSpades

The democrats today aren't the democrats of the 50s. We aren't even the democrats of the 90s. And there's a hell of a lot of differences between democrats and republicans right now. Democrats are trying to help minorities like the LGBT community while Republicans are trying to deny us rights. Democrats are pushing for gun control while Republicans are pushing against it. Acting like you're above it all doesn't help anyone. All it does is alienate people.

So, couple things relating to Islamic news.

Foremost, the Istanbul Ataturk airport in Turkey was victim of a terrorist attack similar to the one in Brussels, with 42 killed and another 239 injured (41 of which are in the ICU). Sadly, I doubt this will get much coverage in the US since there weren't any Western casualties - at least not the same level that the attack in France got.

And Samantha Bee pointed out that, contrary to Trump's claims that the American Muslim community isn't doing its part, showed that, in the span of 2001-2015, they'd called in terrorist tips 64 times, only 7 shy of the FBI's in the same time-frame.

So yeah, further proof that not only is Trump full of shit, but that the primary victims of ISIS is other Muslims, as Turkey is ~95-98% Muslim.

Man I really hate the Turkish government. They're arming and funding ISIS and letting them attack their own citizens. All because ISIS is doing it's best to wipe out the Kurds.

Not really U.S. Politics, but something I found interesting that was noted by "expert commentators" on MSNBC and CNN. So, while ISIS likes to take credit for terrorist attacks on "The West", even when they aren't responsible, they are more reticent about doing so when they attack Muslim targets, even when it's totally obvious to everyone that it was their doing.

Yeah, was kind of "surprised" at Erdogan condemning the attack. Not that I doubt his sincerity in thinking it was a horrific atrocity (who wouldn't?), but because of the massive hypocrisy involved.

edited 29th Jun '16 1:08:00 PM by Hodor2