The General US Politics Thread

Ehh, I don't think Republicans hate AOC.

Republican LEADERSHIP hates her.

The base doesn't necessarily. She looks like a CW political drama protagonist—which sadly probably means more than her actual policies to the average GOP voter.

One of the weirdest surveys I found in Kentucky voters was that the more physically appealing a female candidate for the Democrats was, the more likely they'd get less opposition from Republicans and get angry at the attacks against them. This survey was notably in the discussion of whether Mitch could be beaten for Senator last election.

Which, to quote this forum again, disgusted but not surprised.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 19th 2019 at 12:27:41 PM

A little bit of good news:

Trump approval drops 3 points to 2019 low after release of Mueller report: Reuters/Ipsos poll

https://reut.rs/2IJ2D7f

See, this reminds me of how the Evil Turtle back in 2016 threatened to pull support for Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership (essentially) because it didn't allow tobacco companies to sue countries that restrict it. See here. This statement is the one I cite whenever I argue that this guy has no bounds as it shows that he doesn't stop at US borders.

Incidentally and inspired by wisewillow's post ... is voting age a race issue? I noticed on the roll call for the amendment that would have established 16 as the federal voting age that all the prominent African Americans I can name off the top of my head (Clyburn, Jackson Lee, Cummings, Fudge, Lewis) are in the "yes" column and from checking a first few it looks like most of that group (Congressional Black Caucus) are there.

As for the bill itself? Quite aside from the issue Charles Phipps mentioned (do you have a link to the text?) it's far from clear that vaping is so bad that one has to run immediately to broad brush bans. And if so, then they should be all or nothing bans not piecemeal approaches like age restrictions.

eta: Also, I wonder if a ban on vaping serves to remove competition from proper cigarettes.

Edited by SeptimusHeap on Apr 19th 2019 at 9:55:15 PM

Leadership is finding ways to make their base hate AOC too, actually. Remember how she and Omar keep getting death threats? And just from talking to my dad, who’s a conservative, it’s become clear that they’re framing her as a rabid antisemite to stir up hate against her.

Elizabeth Warren’s public lands plan is pretty great.

Key points:

• No additional fossil fuel drilling on public lands and expand the clean water rule to cover more waterways;

• Restore the protected status of national monuments whose size have been reduced Trump;

• Increase funding for national parks by restoring prior commitments and directing funding appropriately;

• Create a “21st Century Civilian Conservation Corps” to provide jobs while taking better care of federal lands; and

• Make national parks free to all Americans

Mmmmm smells like thoughtful policy.

Edited by wisewillow on Apr 19th 2019 at 1:53:36 AM

Yeah, that's why Warren's my front-runner - she's got a good history as a civil servant (starting as the head of the CFPB in regards to national-level politics), honed her skills and rhetoric as a Senator, and overall just has concrete steps to achieve progressive goals and ideas.

Though I'm not 100% sold on her 7% surtax for companies earning over $100 million - as much as I like the idea, I have to wonder whether that would actually address the issue of those companies hiding assets overseas. Kind of hard to apply that surtax to a company that "spent" $400 million on acquiring the "rights" to an IP owned by another (subsidiary) company in a basement in the Netherlands.

That's the irony - the case I was thinking of (namely Activision Blizzard) is in a unique spot where the US thinks the taxes are owed to Holland, but Holland considers the taxes owed to the US. And even if we hammer out a deal with them, it'd be the equivalent of playing whac-a-mole because they'd just shift to a different location.

Edited by ironballs16 on Apr 19th 2019 at 5:06:11 AM

There are ways to address that though, you either make a deal with the Netherlands, put a big tax on any US citizen getting profits from said shell company or you start pushing punitive action against any country that allows such practices.

I do wonder if one day a subsidiary territory (like the Virgin Islands, Jersey or Bermuda) is going to play too fast and loose with enabling tax avoidance and ended up facing military retaliation.

Edited by Silasw on Apr 19th 2019 at 9:01:29 AM

Ha, a book I recently read for my law and poverty class had an answer for that... which is basically, the US has used its clout to enforce far worse norms; why not use some clout to make this a new norm? That we expect the same cooperation on tax evasion as on anti-terrorism?

Edited by wisewillow on Apr 19th 2019 at 2:08:18 AM

The problem is that the US would need to clean house first, much international tax avoidance is done via US territories (like the US Virgin Islands). If the US were the demand that US citizens/companies not hide their money in the Netherlands than the Dutch government is going to demand that Dutch citizens not be allowed to hide their money in the US.

For things to done via force (be it traditional force or diplomatic force), someone (be it the US, UK or EU) has to clean their own house first, or all three have to come together and agree to all cut the crap simultaneously.

Edit: Warren just called for impeachment!

Edited by Silasw on Apr 19th 2019 at 10:54:42 AM

Warren calls for impeachment of Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/politics/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump-impeachment-proceedings/index.html

As expected, people didn't have the right read of the Democrats.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 19th 2019 at 4:08:20 AM

I understand and respect the desire to impeach Trump, especially after the Muller report which clearly shows wrongdoing. But I just can't support calls for impeachment. It's a simple fact that Trump is not going to be impeached, therefore any attempt to impeach him would be a quixotic undertaking that has a very real chance of backfiring.

I've heard the argument that we need to hold Trump to task lest he be above the law, but that's the thing. Trump's allies control the Senate, he is above the law. Trying and failing to impeach him would just as much establish that as doing nothing would.

What we should be doing is focusing on doing productive things like investigating Trump's White House and pushing beneficial policy. Set the stage for winning 2020 instead of launching a doomed attempt at impeachment that may benefit Trump. I'm just not willing to gamble 2020 over a misguided moral crusade.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Apr 19th 2019 at 4:13:34 AM

I support calls for impeachment because:

1. He is guilty of impeachable offenses

2. The fact that he is guilty of them and the public should know of them exists.

3. I find the idea that, "Just because it won't happen means we shouldn't do it" is a unfeasible argument.

Mind you, I've always found "impeachment is a political act not a legal one" to be a thing no one should ever say because it's inherently anti-democratic.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 19th 2019 at 4:19:33 AM

There is an argument for calling for impeachment but not doing it, the call makes it clear that what Trump did is impeachable and when impeachment doesn’t manifest we can make it clear that it’s because Republicans put party over country and refused to join in.

You don’t call for impeachment with the aim of removing Trump, you call for it with the aim of putting Republican senators in a tough spot.

Plus the point should be made, it’s never going to happen, but someone should say that in a just world it would happen and that’s its wrong that it won’t happen.

I’m starting to see Warren as a lightning rod candidate, she can write the party platform, draw Trump’s anger for a long time, draw Fox’s attention for a long time then drop out, letting someone else get the nomination and then win the election, because she’s acted to soak up the propaganda hated for several months.

I like everything Warren stands for and most of what she does, but I think she might loose because of that, so I’m not sure I want her as the nominee.

For impeachment calls to have any real effect it needs to come from everyone in congress,as in everyone,untill then it's a threat not backed by any real promise

I think it might simply be a viable political strategy. Trump being forced to fight impeachment with no chance of actually being impached is what essentially ruined Bill Clinton's second term.

They don't have to win, just force the enemy to fight.

It may prevent Trump from emboldening his erosion of civil liberties.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 19th 2019 at 4:24:34 AM

It was anyone else weak willed enough I'd agree but this is Trump,to use your analogy,getting Trump to fight isn't enough when he can fight back and land more punches then you

Here's Warren's tweets on the subject.

This doesn't really address any of the arguments I've made, just because impeachment is justified does not mean it's a good idea.

If impeachment has no chance of succeeding (it doesn't) and it could backfire (it could) then I don't see on what grounds one could consider it worth it. How is it possibly worth gambling the chance of Trump winning re-election?

Also, I have to say it's absolutely ridiculous to call "impeachment is a political act not a legal one" anti-democratic. That's literally the objective truth, impeachment is explicitly political rather than legal which is why Congress decides it rather than the Supreme Court.

This is some seriously selective history, attempts to impeach Bill Clinton is what got his second term. If Trump gets a second term then we've already suffered a major loss.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Apr 19th 2019 at 4:32:12 AM

Because:

1. Trump is more likely to win if he's not impeached.

2. Future Presidents will consider what he did permissible.

3. It lets the public think the President cannot be challenged or worse that what he did is not a crime.

It's like arresting a mobster or CEO.

You arrest him even if he'll beat it.

I'm glad Warren agrees.

It gutted his second term of any meaningful policy.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 19th 2019 at 4:33:18 AM

1. This is completely unfounded, we have evidence that failed impeachments can help the President in question the opposite is not true.

2. And the Democrats failing to remove Trump will somehow make it seem less viable? This goes back to my original post, Trump is already above the law. A quixotic attempt to remove him will just make it more obvious.

3. Failing impeachment could also do this.

If Trump beats it then it could very well increase his chances of winning the election in 2020, Warren is wrong.

Also, while you can argue how well or badly the dems are doing, I do think that making some public symbolic motions are important to reinforce that they are not complacent on a public level.

And yeah, precedent setting.

Yeah, well I know that Warren is probably going to surge ahead of Biden and Bernie because of this as the first one to go after Trump.

It was a bold play and one I 100% support.

I have yet to see a single argument about precedents that's even slightly compelling, what precedent does refusing to waste time trying to impeach Trump create that trying and failing doesn't?

Both show that Trump is above the law, the latter just creates the possibility of benefiting Trump in 2020.

As long as it doesn't result in impeachment being tried I absolutely agree.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Apr 19th 2019 at 4:42:14 AM

Going for an impeachment at this stage is a terrible idea. Unless there’s hard proof of something obviously and massively criminal rather than just incompetence and misconduct there’s no point. It’ll just backfire on the Dems.

Actually filling to impeach would be a terrible idea, saying that we should do it however isn’t actually the same thing.

As for the idea that Trump is above the law, that precedent won’t be set until either 2021 or 2025, once Trump is no longer president he can be charged by the Do J or even by a particular state.