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
Hi.
I wrote a thing that got out of hand. I am hiding it in a folder so it doesn't annoy people. To apologize for that, I am topping this with a joke because you can't stop me.
How do you tell if a Vampire has COVID-19?
Because of his coffin.
Several political promises are written in ways that are either very simple to fulfill, or are otherwise not necesarily binding. I will use four examples, one international, two from past U.S presidents, and one example with Joe Biden's current political promises. In this ssay I shall...
One of Barack Obama's campaign promises was as follows:
During his presidency, Obama launched the Fair Chance Business Pledge
in which he managed to get about 300 industries to relax their requirements for employees with criminal records.
The National Reentry Resource Center
was established in 2008, but it was signed into law by the Bush administration in the predecessing laws trying to reform the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Sfae Street Acts. It was introduced by Republican Senators unsuccesfully, reworked by a Democratic senator (Daniel K. Davis), alongside Joe Biden (whom you may have heard of) and passed with major bipartisan support.
This multipartisan multi year effort is considered to be partially succesfully an Obama achievement for this and other reasons, but my hwole point is to establish that it was not a straightforward thing that Obama achieved: He didn't so much make a federal regulated program that affected all crime offenders equally, he just made, and was involved in, some programs that made certain centers easier and got some people to sign in with that (and you could argue those who signed in on it were already in agreement with the idea, but that would be too cynical, even for me).
With that example, I think it is fair to say that the sort of expectations one may have from hearing "an incentive program", is that it will alter every interaction forevermore. It however, did not do so, for its scope was limited to the 300 companies he made a deal with, wherever they operate, and whoever contacts the NRRC. But as of today, felons still have a lot of issues.
Let us look at George W. Bush.
His inaugural address
concretes som of the promises he had made in the campaign.
Now. In the spirit of being as fair as possible, I will not pick the low hanging fruit of just how fucking terrifying the social security is in the U.S or the fact Bush faced a housing crisis, and go to the education one, since it's one of Bush's most infamous policies: No Child left Behind.
By making, No Child Left Behind intended to standarize education...by making education different in every state. Without a comprehensive attack on the structural inequities on access to education, No Child Left Behind was doomed from the start to be an absolute failure.
Here's the thing. By being technical, Bush did not lie. He did bring standarized testing to schools, by forcing states to do the tests. It is a slimy interpretation, but he didn't lie. Which is why if you google George W. Bush's "broken" campaign promises, no one mentions this and instead they focus on the taxes and War in Iraq spending (he also promised to reduce spending then he went on to wage war).
The language of his promise was written so that an attempt that did not apply at complete national level counted as a fulfilled promise.
The international example.
Every simple politcal candidate since 1994 in Costa Rica has promised to reduce poverty. The percentages of it however, has never gone below 20%
with the exception of the beggining of the Oscar Arias Sánchez administration (as a result of the previous government's policies - but Arias has always been too happy to take credit). All while the population grows, the absolute number of people in poverty keeps growing.
Are their campaign promises broken? Absoutely. But this is because they explicitly word their campaign promises so that they promise to take us below the 20% line of poverty.
As you can see, the wording of political promises matters. I want to now look at the promises of Joe Biden as the final example as you can see them On Joe Biden's website
.
Now I want to be clear. It is my personal opinion that Joe Biden's campaign promises are a thousandfold better than Donald J. Trump's and that is the most polite way I can refer to Donald Trump's own promises. I will only refer to the Donald Trump campaign promises in the following manner: they are supported by literal Nazis who've never done anything to improve the standard of living for anyone. Not even other impoverished white people.
Of course, Biden's promises are legion, and it would be unfeasible, idiotic, and irresponsible of me to pass judgment on all of them and frankly, no one gives a shit what I think. I just want to bring attention to the fact Joe Biden's political promises follow the wording of the Bush Administration and Obama administration guidelines: open wordings. There are exceptions: A FUCKTON OF THEM, of course but even those can be finagled (For example, his climate change goal is extremely concrete - but extends far beyond what one government can do, into 2050 or 2030.
And more than that I fear that the applicability of many of these promises may be limited in scope. That is to say, many of his political promises would be considered "fulfilled" if some instutions did their job as they usually do, and if he applies some mild suggestions. That is not to say that there are not concrete offers in his plan, no. There is for example the support of the nation-wide, and law-abiding PRO Act
, the fact his campaign has not accepted donations from Oil, Coal, or Gas corporations and executives, the funding via SBA and CFI of minority owned businesses, and many, many, many others. I cannot stress this enough, the Joe Biden administration has gone to lengths to detail the plans they are taking in several aspects.
In some others, particularly the international ones? Not so much.
Granted, this may be because the U.S does not have control of other nations as they do theirs so the best they can do is state their intentions at large, I guess. But I still feel several approaches are somewhat wishy washy at times.
To summarize: I feel the "politicians never fulfill their promises!" meme is born out of several things.
In yesteryears, with far less accurate and accessible means of tracking political promises, the public at large were mostly privy to the grandiloquent, generalized and not exact promises of politicians who would not necesarily materialize immediately, or on all communities (specially in the U.S, where they were sometimes deflected as "states issues". So all a Republican has to do to remove prestige out of a democratic iniciative, is simply not apply it on a state they control, and they cement their control and perspective there). We had pamphlets, speeches, newspapers, magazines. All discardable things without signature. Forgettable.
This meme is also reinforced at several levels structurally: critizing the government is a central part of Democracy itself, and being outright rebellious against it is an important part in the zeitgeist of Americana. The white picket fence, the American Dream, Levi's Blue Jeans, Coca Cola and Country (I'd even argue Rock And Roll, but I understand why a lot of people would disagree with me) music all form part of an inherently capitalist and individualistic point of view, as opposed to one that perceives unity, diversity, and mutual aid as core. Yes, of course patriotism if not jingoism are an important part of Americana - but especially those are in function of being against "the others".
There's few things less "American" than the Statue of Liberty, to be honest (besides the fact it's a french gift). By actions, the U.S governance systems have strayed very, very far from the famous poem that cries for pomp and prestige to stay away, while welcoming, if not beckoning, the "wretched refuse from the teeming shore"
Add to the fact that...well. The majority of the United States is "ok". And when you're fine and don't need particular help, it is fine to tune out the needs of others. I won't use the fact that the U.S poverty line is close to 10% and going lower
according to the Census Bureau in 2019 to say "that means 90% of the people in the U.S are fine". Because they are not - not necesarily. An averaged number will by necesity ignore the extreme ranks of all sides and fail to account for several structural inadecuacies. Even if you have an average salary, doesn't mean you have access to healthcare, for example.
But the point is that since most are "ok" enough by some easily misinterpreted measures...and perhaps even disinterested in more, it may breed a certain indifference to what politicians say or do if it's not bombastic, or doesn't affect them too much. And besides, it's much more entertaining to tune in to Duck Dynasty than it is to these vacuous promises of certain alleged stuff from men in suits. Sometimes, this drives politicians into saying ridiculous ideas just to vie for attention - chicken in every pot! Car in every garage!
All of this, and many others (Such as human heuristics), are compounded in to make the idea "politicians don't fulfill their promises".
TL,DR: Aszur is an idiot who thinks that politicians word their promises in skeevy manners sometimes, that WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY that either promotes this sort of wording, or inures people from caring about them, but that it is important to note that technology helps us keep track of this better and better.
And for that matter, we need to be aware of how campaign promises are worded to us, and be wary of how they can be implemented - maybe we need to be a little bit more wary of "Campaign promises broken and completed" as a threshold for ethical judgment.
Edited by Aszur on Nov 3rd 2020 at 11:43:52 AM
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes@Carbon Mantis: I'm sorry you have to go through all that and for anyone who does at the polling place. I went super early and mine was nearly empty. But I got in and apparently there were about 37 voters that day before me.
I wish voter intimidation was punishable by jail time and seizing all your assets. THAT would stop the little Trumplings, finally.
Edited by Wildcard on Nov 3rd 2020 at 12:43:45 PM
Could you call one of the voter intimidation lines now? If they're still there it might be worth it. And I think those don't necessarily go to local police.
In 1800, Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party called for allocating electoral votes by congressional district — as Maine and Nebraska currently do, in part — to eliminate the winner-take-all aspect of the Electoral College. But Democratic-Republicans instead used their supermajority in Congress to pass the 12th Amendment, separating the votes for president and vice president, in order to help Jefferson’s reelection prospects in 1804. (Originally, electors’ two votes all went into the same tally, and the person with the second-most votes became VP.)
But as national parties began to develop, state legislatures began changing their allocation formulas to help their preferred candidate win (generally moving to more winner-take-all formats), sometimes even appointing electors to bypass the state’s voters altogether. Changing or eliminating the Electoral College was a perpetual topic of debate in Congress from 1813 to 1826, with several constitutional amendments getting close, and two passing one chamber but not the other.
Calls for reform continued to pop up intermittently, but the next big push came in 1950, when the Senate approved an amendment to allocate states’ electoral votes proportionally, according to the percentage of votes won by each candidate. That amendment failed to get the requisite two-thirds support in the House. A national popular vote amendment passed the House in 1969, with the support of President Richard Nixon, but failed in the Senate.
The Electoral College may be, as Hubert Humphrey once called it, like a “human appendix” (“useless, unpredictable and a possible center of inflammation”). But because it’s in the Constitution, and at least a third of the country always seems to benefit from it, it remains with us still — and probably will for a while longer. (If you want to read more about all this, check out this article I wrote for Washington Monthly.)
From 538's live feed. Seems like people have been trying to get rid of this thing since the start.
Actually, this makes me curious; has anyone kept, like, an exhaustive list of all violent incidents perpetrated by Trumpeters and Trumpeter-adjacent folks, and a second list alongside keeping track of similar incidents perpetrated by leftists (of any stripe)? I know that the latter has a bad habit of getting grossly over-exaggerated to feed bothsiderist narratives, but it'd be nice to have some kind of hard evidence proving it's exaggerated. I've already told you about my old housemate who was convinced that Antifa is really behind all the violence, somehow, and I wish I had something like that at the time.
Those sell-by-dates won't stop me because I can't read!Four years ago it was a beautiful day here in Halifax, and I was able to walk 30 minutes to the dentist in only a light jacket.
Now its below freezing, and we are getting our first snowfall of the season.
I can only hope this is some sort of good omen.
Edited by Rationalinsanity on Nov 3rd 2020 at 2:38:18 PM
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.You know, I think the Senate race in Maine is a clear example of the benefits of RCV. There's an independent/Green candidate on the ballot, but she's explicitly telling her supporters to rank Sara Gideon second (they've even appeared together at a polling place today), and thanks to RCV, there's no chance of her being a spoiler.
Edited by nova92 on Nov 3rd 2020 at 10:30:24 AM
Exclusive: Tired of Trump, Deutsche Bank games ways to sever ties with the president - sources
Deutsche Bank has about $340 million in loans outstanding to the Trump Organization, the president’s umbrella group that is currently overseen by his two sons, according to filings made by Trump to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics in July and a senior source within the bank. The three loans, which are against Trump properties and start coming due in two years, are current on payments and personally guaranteed by the president, according to two bank officials.
In meetings in recent months, a Deutsche Bank management committee that oversees reputational and other risks for the lender in the Americas region has discussed ways in which it could rid the bank of these last vestiges of the relationship, two of the three bank officials said. The bank has over the years lent Trump more than $2 billion, one of the officials said.
One idea that has come up in the meetings: sell the loans in the secondary market, two of the bank officials said. But one of the officials said that idea has not gained traction, in part because it is not clear who would want to buy the loans and the attendant problems that come with it.
While it was known that Deutsche Bank has been closely examining its relationship with Trump, including by setting up a working group in 2016 to review the bank’s relationship with him, its recent eagerness to end all ties and the contours of discussions in light of the election have not been previously reported.
Deutsche Bank declined to comment. The Trump Organization did not respond to requests for comment. The White House declined to comment. WARREN’S WARNING
The German bank, which first started lending to Trump in the late 1990s, has been dragged into congressional and other investigations into the real estate mogul-turned-politician’s finances and alleged Russia connections.
The probes and the bad press, seen by one senior executive as “serious collateral damage” from the relationship, are an unwelcome distraction for the bank, the three officials said. It comes at a time when Chief Executive Christian Sewing is trying to turn Deutsche Bank around after its decades-long run at becoming a major Wall Street bank left it nursing huge losses.
Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat member of the Senate banking committee, has previously called for an investigation into Deutsche Bank over its money laundering controls and has demanded answers from the lender about its relationship with Trump and his family. She told Reuters that she intended to keep pushing for a probe in the next administration.
“You bet I’m going to continue to fight for accountability and strong enforcement of our banking laws, especially for giant institutions like Deutsche Bank,” she said.
What happens next for the bank rests on the outcome of Tuesday’s elections, according to the three bank officials.
If the Republican president loses, and Democrats take control of the White House and Congress, senior Deutsche Bank executives believe congressional investigations that have stalled amid a court battle over access to Trump’s financial records could be rejuvenated, the three bank officials said.
In this scenario, however, Deutsche Bank executives believe they will also have more freedom to deal with the loans and end their relationship with Trump, the officials said. They hope doing so might help reduce some of the scrutiny, they said. DIFFERENT SCENARIOS
The loans, which are against Trump’s golf course in Miami, and hotels in Washington and Chicago, are such that the Trump Organization has only had to pay interest on them so far, and the entire principal is outstanding, two of the three bank officials said. They come due in 2023 and 2024, the filings show.
The businesses backing the loans face challenges. The coronavirus-driven economic slowdown has hit the travel industry, including hotels. Moreover, last month Reuters reported that Trump’s plan to make money by developing houses and hotels on his golf courses, including the one involving the Deutsche Bank loan, had not panned out so far.
The Deutsche Bank executives are not unduly concerned about Trump’s ability to repay the loans, given the president’s personal guarantees and the time left before they come due, the three bank officials said.
If Trump is not in office, Deutsche Bank executives feel that it would be easier for them to demand repayment, foreclose if he is not able to pay it off or refinance, or try to sell the loans, according to two of the three bank officials.
Since Trump has personally guaranteed all the loans, Deutsche Bank could also seize the president’s assets if he is unable to repay, two of the three bank officials said.
If Trump wins a second term, Deutsche Bank executives feel their options would be fewer, the three bank officials said. The bank wouldn’t want the negative publicity inherent with seizing assets from a sitting president and would likely extend the loans until he is out of office, two of the bank officials said.
The bottom line, the three bank officials said, is that the matter won’t be resolved until well after the election.
Election Day: the only day I ever go to church. Because my polling place is in one.
Done. I can happily report that the polling building didn't have any MAGgots interfering, and that for State House and Representative, the Republicans didn't even bother fielding a candidate (because my district is bluer than the sky).
Snow fell here in Ottawa a few days ago. Which is typical at this point in the year, so therefore snow means nothing.
Edited by RainingMetal on Nov 3rd 2020 at 1:45:27 PM
ASAB: All Sponsors Are Bad.Carbon, I’d suggest calling your relevant state level politicians about the voter intimidation, I know that Washington state have national guard on standby to prevent such things, North Carolina might well need to follow suit.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

There's a caravan of trumplings around the place I voted causing some noise but nothing like that. The police are Q believers so they probably aren't responding.