General US Politics

[Lord Raven]

On 5/12/2018 at 11:51 AM, eclipse said:

Let's say that he broke ties with the Republicans after 2000.  Would he be able to join the Democratic party and have any sort of political career afterwards?  I can't see him being successful, given the state of politics at the time.

In 2000? I'm sure given what he went through in that campaign, I don't think it's completely out of the question.

Either way, he hasn't been nearly as much of a "maverick" as his branding indicates, and that's my main point. It's not necessarily about leaving the Republicans; it's about not allowing them to continue along their path. He pretty much walked with them the entire time.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Lord Raven

[eclipse]

9 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

In 2000? I'm sure [given what he went through](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2000) in that campaign, I don't think it's completely out of the question.

Either way, he hasn't been nearly as much of a "maverick" as his branding indicates, and that's my main point. It's not necessarily about leaving the Republicans; it's about not allowing them to continue along their path. He pretty much walked with them the entire time.

I wonder how his supporters would see it?  Swapping sides/otherwise rocking the boat would be great from our point of view, but neither of us would've voted him at that time unless there was someone awful running against him.

That's a fair point, though.

[Lord Raven]

10 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I wonder how his supporters would see it?  Swapping sides/otherwise rocking the boat would be great from our point of view, but neither of us would've voted him at that time unless there was someone awful running against him.

I imagine it works both ways. The representative has the ability to influence his constituency and vice-versa. He could get primaried by his party, yeah, but if he manages to make it past the primary (which, I mean, he has a 6 year term, so the long-term should be his worry and not the short-term) then a Democrat can't exactly argue his voting record as easily.

He doesn't even necessarily need to rock the boat, but things like choosing Sarah Palin instead of Joe Liebermann in the 2008 election as well as stuff I've previously listed makes me scratch my head. If he truly believed that we were too divided, then he should've never voted in favor of the tax bill because of the sketchy conditions in which it was made. Meanwhile, he opposed the healthcare bill despite it being his ideal healthcare bill and despite the Democrats trying to reach across the aisle. It felt like he caved to pressure too easily.

But the thing is that I do believe that he is a good man in precarious circumstances. Maybe I am just disappointed. I don't know.

[Crysta]

McCain's a swell guy but if he tried to join the Democratic party we'd probably run him out as soon as he jumped onboard.

He's a 'maverick' because he occasionally pisses off fellow conservatives and occasionally says stuff like this. Won't win many votes today, I'm afraid!

 

[Shoblongoo]

...curious thing about John McCain...

According to the hard-right: he's a dirty double-crossing R.I.N.O. (republican-in-name-only) who's really just a Democrat posing as a centrist republican 
According to the hard-left: he's a fake centrist whose really just a right wing ideologue and tows the line for Republican policies.

In other words; nobody feels like he's solidly in their camp, and both sides love to bitch that he's too cozy with the other. 

That speaks pretty strongly to his independent streak and bipartisan approach to lawmaking. 

There is one group that seems to feel very strongly that McCain is in their camp and can be relied upon to do what they want him to do. And that's the voters of Arizona.

Who despite constantly being told by the right that McCain is a RINO and a fake republican and that Arizona needs a "real conservative," kept shooting down his primary challenges and renominating John McCain as the Republican candidate for Senate in Arizona's GoP primary elections.

And who despite constantly being told by the left that McCain is a rightwing ideologue and fake centrist posing as a respectable statesman kept reelecting him over his Democratic opponents in the general.    

On 5/12/2018 at 2:51 PM, eclipse said:

Let's say that he broke ties with the Republicans after 2000.  Would he be able to join the Democratic party and have any sort of political career afterwards?  I can't see him being successful, given the state of politics at the time.

8 hours ago, Agent 707 said:

McCain's a swell guy but if he tried to join the Democratic party we'd probably run him out as soon as he jumped onboard.

The closest analogue here would be the political career of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman; one of McCain's closet personal friends in the Senate, and a man of comparable character and bipartisanship. Lieberman was a moderate Democrat who for years held his office in similar straights to McCain; too liberal to ever be welcomed by Republicans, but too far removed from the liberal orthodoxy of the hard-left and too willing to work with Bush-era Republicans for the taste of the Democratic Party. 

Eventually, in 2006, Lieberman was challenged in a Democratic primary by a candidate from the far-left. He lost the Democratic Primary.

Lieberman then ran as an independent in the general election against both the republican nominee for senate and the democrat who had beaten him in the primary. Won reelection in the general election as an independent candidate: receiving only 33% support from democrats in the statewide election, but 54% support among independents and 70% among Republicans. (the final tally vote tally was something like 50% Lieberman, 40% [D], 10% [R]). 

Then returned to the Senate--having lost the democratic nomination and defeated the democratic party's nominee--as a true independent, formally severed from his ties to the Democratic Party.

The simple reason why McCain never did this, IMO, is that John McCain never lost a Republican primary election. 

If he had, than I very strongly suspect he would have followed Lieberman's career path and run for reelection as an independent.   

But that was a move he never had to make. Because no matter how much he departed from conservative orthodoxy and no matter how much hate the far-right threw at him, he kept winning reelection as a Republican. 
 

On 5/12/2018 at 8:35 PM, Lord Raven said:

It's not necessarily about leaving the Republicans; it's about not allowing them to continue along their path.

 ^^^
This.

If you're going to be the same man whether your inside the party or outside the party, you might as well park yourself in a place where you're in a position of superior power to influence what you believe to be a once-great party losing itself to its worst elements (i.e.  within the party, representing the opposing wing of the intraparty conflict)
________

McCain's being candid as only a man facing death in the face can be now, and this is one of the more interesting stories about what hes been saying recently that caught my eye. Something that many McCain supporters suspected for a while, and that hes now more-or-less confirming without reservation:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/us/politics/john-mccain-arizona.html

Reflecting upon his life in politics and public service, McCain considers the single biggest mistake of his (lengthy) career to be picking Sarah Palin for VP in 2008.

McCain wanted Lieberman. He wanted to run with a man he knew and respected and wanted to make a bold statement about bipartisanship over political posturing; win-or-lose, it would have been a historic pick. The first time that the nominee for president of a major political party had picked an opposing-party candidate for the VP spot. (Lieberman was technically an independent at this point, but he was still widely viewed as a Democrat)

...McCain's republican campaign staff heard this and went absolutely ape-shit...

Unanimously--everyone around McCain told him that picking a Democrat for VP would be suicide. That no conservatives would vote for him, and the Democrats would still vote for Obama. That conservatives were already unhappy about his nomination, and that the only way to get them to vote was by putting a hard-right figure in the VP slot, to signal that conservatives would still have a voice in his administration.

After much argumentation, McCain agreed with their strategy and gave the VP slot to Palin.

But his first choice had been Lieberman. In his gut he wanted that bipartisan ticket. And as he lays dying from brain cancer, the biggest regret of his political life is evidently that he didn't follow his gut. 

(Left unsaid but a thought that I'd wager has crossed his mind on more than one occasion--I'm sure he's less-then-thrilled with the brand of politics Palin has cultivated on the Tea Party circuit since being elevated from backwater Alaska electioneering to the national scene, and regrets that he brought her to that level and gave her that voice. There's some sense of personal culpability there. But however well deserved the tongue-lashing, he's far too diplomatic to ever personally badmouth his former running mate) 

[Moblin Major General]

To the surprise of absolutely no one, the opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem has caused widespread protests, with many escalating quickly. 

I don't have any other words. I shouldn't wonder how people could hate each other that much, but the Palestinians and Israelis do. Thanks, Sykes-Picot, you caused this.

[Shoblongoo]

50 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

I don't have any other words. 

...I have a few... 

AMERICAN NEWS:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/387574-us-opens-embassy-in-jerusalem-amid-violence

"President Trump and his top aides celebrated the opening of the new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem on Monday"

"The president’s elder daughter and son-in-law, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, headlined the U.S. delegation that praised Trump"

ISRAELI NEWS

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/u-s-embassy-gaza-protests-and-nakba-day-live-updates-1.6078190

"Dozens of Palestinians were killed and thousands more wounded in clashes with Israel in Gaza Monday, sparking condemnations from across the world."

"The Israeli army is preparing for a secnario in which Hamas is unable to restrain itself in light of Monday's death toll and will launch rockets at Israel. Considering these assessments, Iron Dome defense systems have been deployed in several locations."



________

...okay...

Now I have no words. 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Apparently the Special Counsel cannot indict the sitting president and will ultimately result in a report given to congress to take and evaluate whether or not impeachment proceedings should go through.

Given that the GOP controls all branches, this makes impeachment of that asinine fucker a bit of a longshot unless it's initiated after mid term election winners take office and aren't Republican majority.

I certainly hope I'm wrong here and the orange moron can be removed from power sooner rather later.

Edited May 17, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Shoblongoo]

4 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Apparently the Special Counsel cannot indict the sitting president and will ultimately result in a report given to congress to take and evaluate whether or not impeachment proceedings should go through.

Given that the GOP controls all branches, this makes impeachment of that asinine fucker a bit of a longshot unless it's initiated after mid term election winners take office and aren't Republican majority.

I certainly hope I'm wrong here and the orange moron can be removed from power sooner rather later.

Claim came from Rudy Giuliani, whose not particularly credible ATM. Its an unresolved legal question whether or not a sitting president can be criminally indicted; its never been tried before and its never been challenged before the judiciary or directly addressed in any Supreme Court ruling.  

There's a school of thought that says because The Constitution sets forth impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate as the remedy for a a president committing "high crimes." Therefore, the legislative process of impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate has exclusive jurisdiction over prosecuting any criminal misconduct by a sitting president and no such prosecution can occur before a Court. 

There's a school of thought that says just because Congress and only Congress has the power to remove a president from office via impeachment, that doesn't preclude the judiciary from carrying out its function of prosecuting criminal violations of law;. It only means that if the president is indicted and convicted of a crime in judicial proceedings, the criminal conviction before a Court in-and-of-itself cannot remove him from office or result in a sentence of punishment unless and until the president is impeached by Congress. 

DOJ guidelines hold to the former interpretation. I personally agree with the latter. 

__________

Regardless; if Mueller follows DOJ guidelines and does not indict Trump for any crimes uncovered, but merely issues a report to Congress recommending articles of impeachment. (and i think there's reasons beyond Giuliani's claim to suspect that he's probably going to go down that road)

And if that report comes out around its expected time  Sometime around July.

Then what that effectively does is make Will you support or oppose the impeachment of Donald Trump? THE definitive issue of the November Midterm elections, for every single competitive House and Senate race.

And its in the hands of voters sending their elected representatives to Congress--2 years removed now from 2016--to decide whether or not with everything we know now, they still think Donald Trump deserves to be President.

Its the ultimate case of The People Get the Government they Deserve. 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Excellen Browning]

 

PIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISS TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Edited May 30, 2018 by Excellen Browning

[Lord Raven]

ugh the fact that they're going to be used against the sitting president is just humiliating

but the only other thing i think it could be referring to is the don jr meeting.

edit: also phone conversations with cohen

Edited May 31, 2018 by Lord Raven

[Tryhard]

Horror ahead:

A candidate that's running as a "libertarian" independent in Virginia is pretty much the worst thing I've ever seen. I know he has pretty much no chance to win, but he is severely mentally disturbed.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/nathan-larson-congressional-candidate-pedophile_us_5b10916de4b0d5e89e1e4824

A forum post he had made previously:

I just want to bang my daughter, actually, but even if it were legal I'm not sure it would happen because I don't have custody. After sex with kids is legalized, parents (and other guardians) will still be gatekeepers to some extent, and a lot of them will want to bang their own kids and not share with others... Once sex with kids is legalized, I imagine the competition to get into their pants will be something fierce.

Ballotpedia:

What one reform or policy change is most important to you? “ I want to legalize child pornography because I think that the laws are overly vague about what constitutes child pornography, and that they restrict freedom of speech.[2]

"I think we need to get rid of certain laws, like the restraining order laws, that treat men as criminals without affording them the same rights they would have in a criminal case. I also think we should get rid of laws that require men to pay child support without being allowed to spend parenting time with their children. I believe patriarchy is the natural order and that the laws should reflect that. Nobody has come up with a better system for ensuring happiness and familial stability than the old-fashioned order of treating women as the property of first their fathers and later their husbands.[2]"

https://ballotpedia.org/Nathan_Larson

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

Horror ahead:

 

  Hide contents

A candidate that's running as a "libertarian" independent in Virginia is pretty much the worst thing I've ever seen. I know he has pretty much no chance to win, but he is severely mentally disturbed.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/nathan-larson-congressional-candidate-pedophile_us_5b10916de4b0d5e89e1e4824

A forum post he had made previously:

 

 

Ballotpedia:

 

 

https://ballotpedia.org/Nathan_Larson

 

 

I don't know how it works in Virginia, but in New Jersey, literally anyone who can collect 200 valid signatures on a ballot petition can run for Congress.

...we got a guy affectionately known as "NJ Weedman" who runs every year as the candidate of his own made-up Rastafarian Party. (his local claim to fame is that he tricked The State into recognizing his restaurant and lounge as a rastafarian temple, openly grew and sold while claiming "religious use" exemption under 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a), got arrested + sentenced to 10 years in prison when The State figured out what he was doing, and STILL continued to get 200+ signatures on his ballot petitions and run as an official candidate for Congress while incarcerated in state prison) 

...We had another guy who ran as an independent for Congress as "the Spanking Candidate." His entire platform was that we needed to bring back corporal punishment in the public schools, and that if he was elected to Congress his #1 issue would be making it legal for parents and teachers to beat the piss out of misbehaving children.  He got 200+ signatures to run.
...We had a local candidate for Township Counsel who was under a domestic violence restraining order and believed he had uncovered a government conspiracy to put chemicals in the drinking water. 

[NinjaMonkey]

So everything is going to be more expensive due to Trump putting tariffs on imports (and the EU doing likewise in retaliation).

Thanks America!

Edited June 2, 2018 by NinjaMonkey

[Dr. Tarrasque]

The buffoon treats the country's allies as a National Security threat while attempting to do anything that Putin would want to and now he seeks to use his pardoning power to improve his "ratings". Meanwhile his presence empowers Nazis and moronic cooks like that pedophile to run for office (some of them UNOPPOSED).

I will applaud the moment I hear that Trump has been assassinated and the planet no longer has to hear from the orange turd.

[Lord Raven]

2 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

I will applaud the moment I hear that Trump has been assassinated and the planet no longer has to hear from the orange turd.

Yeah, this is the last thing we want. It's fodder for the 40% floor of the country that approves of his job.

[eclipse]

2 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

The buffoon treats the country's allies as a National Security threat while attempting to do anything that Putin would want to and now he seeks to use his pardoning power to improve his "ratings". Meanwhile his presence empowers Nazis and moronic cooks like that pedophile to run for office (some of them UNOPPOSED).

I will applaud the moment I hear that Trump has been assassinated and the planet no longer has to hear from the orange turd.

Who do you think will take over if Trump suddenly goes poof?

[Dr. Tarrasque]

8 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Yeah, this is the last thing we want. It's fodder for the 40% floor of the country that approves of his job.

I know and it pisses me off knowing that the best way to get rid of this fucker is to just let the investigation take its course and impeachment to happen. It's just immeasurably infuriating that we have an orange turd with power that can't be cleaned up overnight. Trump is worse than dog shit for that reason.

8 hours ago, eclipse said:

Who do you think will take over if Trump suddenly goes poof?

Pence who's no better than Trump when it comes to policies and domestic related issues. One would hope that he's at least less of a threat to the US foreign affairs and policies.

Edited June 9, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Etrurian emperor]

11 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

The buffoon treats the country's allies as a National Security threat while attempting to do anything that Putin would want to and now he seeks to use his pardoning power to improve his "ratings". Meanwhile his presence empowers Nazis and moronic cooks like that pedophile to run for office (some of them UNOPPOSED).

I will applaud the moment I hear that Trump has been assassinated and the planet no longer has to hear from the orange turd.

Trump getting assassinated is probably the very worst outcome. You don't solve the Populist problem by making martyrs out of them. That just ensures their supporters will double down on their stance of ignoring all their flaws while glorifying their great tragic leader who would have made the world so much better if only he had been given the chance. It just makes them support the next wacky populist all the more and unlike Trump his successor might actually be competent. 

Rather then being made into martyrs populists should just be exposed as frauds and be spat out by society. 

[Tryhard]

Just now, Etrurian emperor said:

Rather then being made into martyrs populists should just be exposed as frauds and be spat out by society. 

I take it you're not a fan of any populism including left-leaning populism, then?

Because Trump really represents talking populism on the campaign trail, and then going completely against that in power.

18 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Pence who's no better than Trump when it comes to policies and domestic related issues. One would hope that he's at least less of a threat to the US foreign affairs and policies.

I actually don't think Pence would be much better on supplying terroristic regimes with weapon deals, supporting Israel unconditionally like any other Republican or Democrat really, willing to go along with foreign wars.

The best you could say that he would likely to be less unhinged and more friendly to what has been considered US allies (Europe, Canada, etc)

[Etrurian emperor]

Just now, Tryhard said:

I take it you're not a fan of any populism including left-leaning populism, then?

Because Trump really represents talking populism on the campaign trail, and then going completely against that in power.

I don't think it matters whether its left or right. Making promises you know to be damaging or even extremely damaging to the nation just for your own political advancement is deplorable either way. Doesn't matter if its the right wing Republicans or the left wing five star movement from Italy.  I don't even think populists really fit with the classical definition of left and right wing. Populists(at least in Europe) tend to really support left wing social programs because that gets them more votes while combining it with right wing cultural stances.  

Trump backing down on a lot of things he said is better then the alternative but its damaging in its own way. A lot of populist voters see the populist as their final hope and its not going to do their faith in democracy much good if their last hope is backing out of promises too. But I think Trump not jumping to implement every bad idea he ever had is because of his babysitters rather than himself. 

[Tryhard]

1 minute ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I don't think it matters whether its left or right. Making promises you know to be damaging or even extremely damaging to the nation just for your own political advancement is deplorable either way. Doesn't matter if its the right wing Republicans or the left wing five star movement from Italy.  I don't even think populists really fit with the classical definition of left and right wing. Populists(at least in Europe) tend to really support left wing social programs because that gets them more votes while combining it with right wing cultural stances.  

Trump backing down on a lot of things he said is better then the alternative but its damaging in its own way. A lot of populist voters see the populist as their final hope and its not going to do their faith in democracy much good if their last hope is backing out of promises too. But I think Trump not jumping to implement every bad idea he ever had is because of his babysitters rather than himself. 

I would consider Bernie Sanders a left-wing populist. I don't think populism is inherently bad, and I also don't think he was making promises that would be damaging to the country, or for the sole purpose of political advancement. Trump is a fraud, though.

And for what the claims are about an elite taking advantage of the workers, that is absolutely the case in America currently.

[Etrurian emperor]

Just now, Tryhard said:

I would consider Bernie Sanders a left-wing populist. I don't think populism is inherently bad, and I also don't think he was making promises that would be damaging to the country, or for the sole purpose of political advancement. Trump is a fraud, though.

And for what the claims are about an elite taking advantage of the workers, that is absolutely the case in America currently.

Populism isn't always bad but the populist themselves tend to quite obviously be political adventurers. I feel Sanders is lacking a lot of traits that make the populist so reprehensible to me and so I don't really include him. 

I suppose there have been some good populist. You got Caesar, Bernie if he counts and maybe, maybe Lula in Brazil if you're very generous and willing to overlook certain things. And that's it. The rest are more Claudius than Caesar if you're willing to put it very nerdy. 

[Tryhard]

6 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Populism isn't always bad but the populist themselves tend to quite obviously be political adventurers. I feel Sanders is lacking a lot of traits that make the populist so reprehensible to me and so I don't really include him. 

I suppose there have been some good populist. You got Caesar, Bernie if he counts and maybe, maybe Lula in Brazil if you're very generous and willing to overlook certain things. And that's it. The rest are more Claudius than Caesar if you're willing to put it very nerdy. 

What would you consider Jeremy Corbyn, out of interest?

I think more likely is that left leaning populists are generally ignored on a congress level. For example, Paula Jean Swearengin lost to Joe Manchin in the West Virginia primary recently. There have been other more successful wins for left leaning candidates that are supported by Sanders and the like in other places. I feel as if there is going to be more candidates in this style if things keep going the way they are.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

47 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

I actually don't think Pence would be much better on supplying terroristic regimes with weapon deals, supporting Israel unconditionally like any other Republican or Democrat really, willing to go along with foreign wars.

The best you could say that he would likely to be less unhinged and more friendly to what has been considered US allies (Europe, Canada, etc)

You are probably right. I've only seen enough of Pence to know that he's your typical GOP politician in power who opposes things like same sex marriages and pretends to be for Christian values. Even so, the bolded alone is at least enough for the country to be in less of a self-damaging state than it currently is.

As for the subject of Populist: I think that a populist leader is what the country needs right now and as Tryhard mentioned, it is literally the stance and platform that Trump used to run for presidency but then did the complete opposite once he actually got into power. Trump's been repeating much of what went down during Nixon's time but a key difference between the 2 eras is that today you have Fox News and right-wing propaganda going around to reinforce the negatives of the Democrats while staying silent and hiding the hypocrisy and truth of the current GOP's agenda as well as empowering white supremacy which definitely needs to be taken down.