Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
>Alley Oop If you could...not compare Sanders supporters to TER Fs, that would be great. Those two things are nowhere near the same level of wrongness. Thank you.
>Populism and the "Lowest Common Denominator"
...I'm not going to get into the issues of looking down upon "the lowest comment denominator" in too much depth, but if your policies aren't working to benefit the lives of the populace than who are they trying to benefit?
Trying to help improve lives by policy is the entire point.
The flip side of populism can be elitism, and we should be wary to fall into that trap.
>wisewillow
Hey, Biden, I know you really seem to want my least favorite candidate spot, but can you just stop!?
Yeah, I think Booker hit the nail on the head here. This is disgusting. I don't like the whole "lets reach across the isle" rhetoric to begin with, this is just a whole new low of it.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Jun 19th 2019 at 9:07:16 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerTo be fair, I would indeed argue a problem with...well, democracy in general, is that your common individual is not necessarily all that "qualified". It's like trying to prove or disprove a scientific theory by polling laymen and asking their opinion.
I should note, though, that there are ways to mitigate this and democracy has benefits of its own. The big one is it reduces conflict of interest: the common citizen gets to choose the policies that will effect them. If a voter is harmed by a policy they voted for, it's their own damn fault. Another one is also that what a well-run government looks like is somewhat subjective. If the people effected by a policy keep voting for it, that implies the policy is probably working in some way.
Edited by Protagonist506 on Jun 19th 2019 at 6:19:55 AM
Leviticus 19:34https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2019/06/19/day-881/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/19/politics/epa-rolls-back-obama-coal-emissions/index.html
2/ Hope Hicks refused to answer questions during a closed-door hearing before the House Judiciary Committee as part of their ongoing investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice. While the White House did not formally assert executive privilege to block Hicks from answering questions, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone's said Hicks was "absolutely immune" from discussing her tenure in the Trump administration. Hicks, however, is a private citizen. Hicks also wouldn't answer questions as basic as where she sat in the West Wing or whether she told the truth to Mueller. Meanwhile on Twitter, Trump accused Democrats of putting Hicks "through hell" and seeking a "Do Over" of the Mueller investigation. The Judiciary Committee said it will release a full transcript of the interview within 48 hours. (Politico / Washington Post / New York Times / NBC News / Daily Beast /CNN)
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/18/hope-hicks-donald-trump-obstruction-1368197
3/ Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is privately claiming that Iran has ties to Al Qaeda in order to justify invoking the 2001 war authorization and allow the Trump administration to go to war with Iran. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force permits the U.S. to wage war on Al Qaeda and its allies. While Pompeo claimed Trump "does not want war," Trump ordered 2,500 additional troops to the region recently. On Monday, the Pentagon said it would send an additional 1,000 troops to the Middle East. (New York Times / Washington Post)
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/19/tom-cotton-iran-attack-trump-1369863
Tucker Carlson has privately advised Trump against taking military action against Iran. The Fox News host compared Pompeo's "misplaced certainty" that Iran attacked the tankers to former Secretary of State Colin Powell's now-discredited claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. (Daily Beast)
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-tucker-carlson-privately-advises-trump-against-iran-war
poll/ 67% of Democrats want lawmakers to begin impeachment proceedings against Trump – up from 59% in April. (Politico)
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/19/impeachment-democrats-poll-congress-1368158
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/19/middleeast/khashoggi-saudi-arabia-report-intl/index.html
Trump vowed to cure cancer and ends AIDS if he's elected to a second term. Trump promised to "come up with the cures to many, many problems, to many, many diseases" as he officially kicked off his 2020 campaign in Orlando. (CBS News)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cure-cancer-aids-joe-biden-orlando-campaign-rally/
Trump Jr. mocked Joe Biden for saying he wants to cure cancer. Junior's remarks came shortly before his father made the same promise to the same audience. (Washington Post)
Trump took credit for passing a veteran's health care bill that was signed into law by Obama in 2014. The Veterans Choice program allows veterans to see doctors outside the government-run VA system at taxpayer expense. (The Hill / Associated Press)
https://www.apnews.com/375515aecedb4aed949e4f2eb9c54eb6
Trump refused to apologize for the full-page ad he ran in 1989 calling for the execution of the Central Park Five who were exonerated in 2002 after Matias Reyes confessed to raping the woman, which was backed up by DNA evidence. Trump suggested the men might still be guilty, because "they admitted their guilt." "You have people on both sides of that," Trump added. A new Netflix series has renewed scrutiny surrounding the Central Park Jogger case. (NBC News / ABC News / Washington Post / USA Today)
Sarah Huckabee Sanders is "extremely serious" about running for governor of Arkansas. Sanders is preparing to leave her current role as White House press secretary at the end of the month and has been privately considering a gubernatorial run for months. (Politico)
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/19/sarah-huckabee-sanders-arkansas-governor-1369873
Today marks 100 days without an on-camera White House press briefing. The previous record was 42 days. (CNN)
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/19/media/reliable-sources-06-18-19/index.html
Edited by sgamer82 on Jun 19th 2019 at 7:23:37 AM
Populism is constructing simplistic arguments and sound bites that sound good and get a lot of people excited in favor of something that may or may not have any legitimate purpose or value, or may even be harmful. It's one of the basest kinds of demagoguery: offering to solve perceived problems with solutions that touch on emotions and gut reactions.
A candidate needs to appeal widely, to be sure, but they also need substance to back up their proposals. They can't just spout the same ten phrases every time they appear in public, then refuse to go into the details.
"$15 minimum wage." Okay, great. That's a lot better than what we have now, but is it enough? Is it practical everywhere? What will the effects be on different kinds of businesses? Will there be consideration for potential job losses in service industries that switch to automation, or outsource labor? Does this affect "gig" employment?
"Break up the banks." Why? What benefits will this offer that overcome its drawbacks? How will you manage the process to avoid disruption to consumer and business finance? Whom will you appoint to run the program, and how do you plan to get it through Congress? What's your game plan for the enormous tide of lobbying and propaganda that will be hurled your way? What measures will be taken to ensure the banks don't just combine again after you're out of office?
You could get half of people to support banning dihydrogen monoxide if you phrase the argument properly. Democracy can only function with an educated populace, and pandering to their ignorance and raw emotion is not helping.
Edited by Fighteer on Jun 19th 2019 at 9:27:30 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Man, so many fanatical warmongers on the Trump regime's payroll.
![]()
![]()
That's fair, but one should also be able to inspire people to support you. You can have the best plan in the world and people might not vote for it if you phrase it poorly enough.
Plus, I'd argue that politics is an inherently emotional thing. I'm rather wary of the "lets get emotions out of politics" mindset because since lot of policies directly effect people's lives. Its unreasonable to assume that passion can't be a motivator.
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerSo the reason Sarah Sanders quit being White House Spokeswoman was to run for Governor of Arkansas? Considering it's Arkansas, the only State with Multiple Districts to remain solid Red in 2018, she's probably going to get it very easily.
x4 Yes.
Edited by DingoWalley1 on Jun 19th 2019 at 9:36:16 AM
Right. A wealth tax is not "illegal"; nothing in the current body of law prohibits it. It may be unconstitutional, but that would need to be tested in the courts.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It's still something that stands out especially in stark contrast to the rest of her more well thought out proposals. Proposing a tax plan that will face the Supreme Court — particularly our current Supreme Court — seems like a really bad idea.
This is why I've described her platform as a weird mix of populism and policy wonkishness.
Edited by M84 on Jun 19th 2019 at 10:02:24 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised>Style over substance
By that definition, sure, that can be an issue. The definition I usually see, though, involves it just "appealing to the "lowest common denominator"" or some such, which I'm...I've got some strong feelings about, but I'll leave it at that.
That implies its a rather even mix, when you're also saying its one policy in particular you object to.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Jun 19th 2019 at 10:03:25 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
It's a particularly important policy though. You'd think someone whose main focus throughout her political career was about lowering income inequality would come up with a tax plan that doesn't have to face such potential hurdles. Especially considering that this tax plan is what's going to be needed to help fund all of the policies she wants to implement.
Edited by M84 on Jun 19th 2019 at 10:09:35 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedAppealing to the lowest common denominator is a loaded charge by itself. Because depending on who you ask, it can mean:
- Racism
OR
- Appealing to blacks with the idea they'll be treated as human.
Republican views of populism are free healthcare, racial justice, and reforming the economy.
Because it implies that appealing to the voters directly is a bad thing and issues that affect them directly.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.RE: Warren's "red meat"
With the "DNC rigged the primaries" bit, she walked it back not long after
, though still asserted that the DNC had some pretty overt bias towards Clinton, which was... not great. And also visible enough that people here were commenting on it, especially the mismanagement of Wasserman-Schulz' efforts on that front.
As for the tax - yeah, not great, but it helped underscore just how much wealth has been accumulated by very few people, which most people genuinely don't realize. Take this 2015 survey of 5,000 people
in which they were asked what they thought the "ideal" inequality would be and what they thought the reality was. Even their version of "reality" was far afield from what the actual reality - The top 20% of US households own more than 84% of the wealth, and the bottom 40% combine for a paltry 0.3%. The Walton family, for example, has more wealth than 42% of American families combined.
And that was from 2015. And we've got certain think-tanks (such as the Libertarian CATO Institute
) that continue to downplay the dangers of it.
And in "Electability" news, turns out that a Democrats' ideal, hypothetical candidate to beat Trump is... a white, middle-aged man
.
Edited by ironballs16 on Jun 19th 2019 at 10:23:24 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Wealth inequality is a huge issue — one might say the driving issue behind our current political problems. The Republican Party isn't funded by racist middle-class whites. It's funded by super wealthy individuals and companies who want their tax burden lowered.
By targeting their wealth directly — through increased top marginal tax rates, estate taxes, targeting tax shelters and offshore havens, and even wealth taxes — we reduce their ability to distort the political marketplace and directly assault the viability of the GOP. It's a fantastic strategy, even if it has vast hurdles to overcome. Warren has thought this through.
I don't even want to touch the claim that telling black voters you'll stand up for their rights equates to populism, as it's dangerously close to an assertion that minorities only care about social justice and have no say or interest in economic or other issues, which is completely false. However, if one party tells me that I shouldn't vote, I should be imprisoned for minor crimes, police are free to kill me, and I have no worth as a person, I'd probably consider voting for the party that doesn't. This is pretty straightforward.
Edited by Fighteer on Jun 19th 2019 at 10:25:27 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That argument is similar to the one against impeachment, in that it applies a fatalist view to the possibility of getting progressive policies passed. There's a simple remedy to the Supreme Court problem: stacking it. Just add more justices and appoint them while you have control of Congress.
Yes, it has the potential to backfire, as does Warren's floated idea of eliminating the filibuster, but at some point we have to take dramatic action to reclaim the government of this country. It isn't going to naturally correct itself over the course of time, not as long as one (and only one) party is willing to blatantly cheat.
Edited to add: For my own sanity, I must stand by the idea that reality will ultimately be the deciding factor in which party emerges ascendant. The GOP will ultimately die on its own hypocrisy, ignorance, and self-contradictions. I'm willing to take almost any measures to keep them from taking the entire country down with them in the process.
Edited by Fighteer on Jun 19th 2019 at 10:30:59 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
![]()
A white middle aged man? Really? Was that poll taken at Silicon Valley?
This is why I think "electability" is BS. No better than a dogwhistle IMO.
Edited by MorningStar1337 on Jun 19th 2019 at 7:28:32 AM
![]()
The problem with Warren's proposed plan, as M84 has pointed out before, is that she'd be engaging in a direct tax, which is unconstitutional (and part of why the "Sovereign Citizen" movement considers taxation "theft"), as well as the sheer cost of trying to catalogue all of your wealth every single year, especially as some assets can fluctuate wildly in value depending on the appraiser's thoughts. After all, a painting has a fixed cost of the materials used, but also a completely nebulous value based on how much someone else might be willing to pay for it. Ditto for housing, really, as there are a number of houses that get assessed at one value while selling above or below that value. That, I'll fully agree, would be an absolute economic nightmare to try solving.
All that said, her comments were definitely illustrative of how wild the disparity is, in which 2 cents from every dollar that these individuals have could be used to fully fund a shitload of public wellness programs.
Edited by ironballs16 on Jun 19th 2019 at 10:33:49 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"

... the “lowest common denominator” ????
Update: Biden has doubled down.
Cory Booker had released the following statement earlier today.
Booker also said that he was disappointed Biden had not offered an immediate apology.
Warren was asked about Biden’s comments on the campaign trail and said:
Edited by wisewillow on Jun 19th 2019 at 5:19:23 AM