American Politics

[peadar1987]

there's no northern European style social democracy / mixed economy promoting party in the UK.

SNP? Come to the dark side, we have haggis

[SkStu]

As an aside, I am watching a great documentary about American politics. I am only about halfway through the first season (which runs in line with the primaries and presidential campaigns. It is a weekly show that was running during the campaigns and gives look behind the scenes and front of scenes. It is really well done and insightful despite its leanings. Made by a Bloomberg Politics so it should be acceptable to all the libtards on here (joke, joke, relax) :)

It’s called The Circus and it’s on Showtime.

Trailer:
https://youtu.be/kV7qm-jwd-8

[dahamsta]

Rename thread to American Politics, since that's what it is.

Start a new thread about Fox or 2020 if necessary.

[Real ale Madrid]

RAM - seriously you have to open your mind a bit and engage in the conversation a bit more honestly.
.

This type of discourse is becoming typical of those who espouse a certain viewpoint on here. Markonetwothreefourfive is already guilty of it - please don’t start slipping into that modus operandi as if you have this magical perspective no one else has.


If a government had a supremacist (e.g. white nationalist) ideology, their mandate would heavily involve the introduction of policies, directives, legislation and other available instruments to make the lives of, in this example, nonwhites distinctly worse off than they would be under a previous non-white nationalist government.
.

There are plenty of examples of this type of rhetoric you speak of - only before Christmas - Justin Clark an attorney and one of Trumps senior people was caught on tape re. voter suppression:


"Traditionally it's always been Republicans suppressing votes in places,"


"Let's start protecting our voters," he continued, partly referring to Election Day monitoring of polling places. "We know where they are [...] Let's start playing offense a little bit. That's what you're going to see in 2020. It's going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program."

https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-audio-trump-adviser-republicans-rely-voter-suppression-justin-clark-2019-12?r=US&IR=T

Interesting - and by your own definition there distinctly white nationalist ideology.



If such an administration was in power at the moment, while you wouldn't be seeing such overt practices, you would be seeing policies being implemented that would have a markedly negative impact on a number of obvious lifestyle/societal markers for minorities.
.

Agreed - what you would be seeing are slightly less overt practices and more rhetoric type propaganda. Interesting you brought up the Nazis - they used an economic crash in the 1920's to stir up division and hatred against those perceived to be the enemy. This was furthered by a refusal to accept the Germans lost WWI on the battlefield but were somehow betrayed by German Jews and other 'undesirables' to him such as social democrats. That is how the Nazi party started rampant anti-Semitism in Germany in the 30s.
You could argue that Trump is trying to divide and demonize along similar lines with his build the wall rhetoric - it is a clear and blatant attempt to demonise all Mexicans as drug dealers and rapists etc - we've gone over 'The Border Wall' before so I won't go there again but another example imo of white Nationalist rhetoric in action.


The data i have shared supports that this clearly is not happening. Another thing that supports my position on this is the work that Trump has done on prison reform over the last year and a half. That is not the work of a supremacist, white nationalist government. At all. Ever. Reversing laws that were implemented under the Clinton administration that had a huge impact on black and Hispanic people and poor communities - or super predators as he called them. I don’t happen to think his administration was supremacist though either.
.

It doesn’t clearly support anything. It is of course an indicator – but living standards I’ll bet are still well under the norm and I’m not sure the type of employment is conducive to long term growth anyway. Are people earning a living wage? – 80% of Americans live “paycheck to paycheck” – hardly a sweeping reform of life for minorities. Not sure about the prison reform stuff and the reversal of the Clinton admin items – I’ll take your word for that. The General point remains – you can’t offset unemployment stats v General behaviour.

[SkStu]

This type of discourse is becoming typical of those who espouse a certain viewpoint on here. Markonetwothreefourfive is already guilty of it - please don’t start slipping into that modus operandi as if you have this magical perspective no one else has.

Give me a break. You are trying to position yourself as some sort of victim because i asked you to engage more honestly? If i put forward a simple premise, then i expect people to be able to grasp it and argue it on its merits and not engage in one word or one sentence responses. If you don't then you are either too entrenched or too ignorant to bother with. If you dont like being called out on a crap response then go find a safe space.



There are plenty of examples of this type of rhetoric you speak of - only before Christmas - Justin Clark an attorney and one of Trumps senior people was caught on tape re. voter suppression:





https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-audio-trump-adviser-republicans-rely-voter-suppression-justin-clark-2019-12?r=US&IR=T

Interesting - and by your own definition there distinctly white nationalist ideology.

That is a ridiculously weak example to support your accusation (or your support of an accusation) that Trump and his administration is white supremacist or white nationalist. The discussion around voter suppression/expansion has been around for as long as i can remember. Both parties have, at various times, been accused of both. It is not the jurisdiction of the Trump administration. In fact, this guy is talking about the Republican Party and the historical perception, not Trump or his administration. I notice from the article you provided that this guy explains his comments but you didn't think to quote that. Not very honest there at all RAM, is it? Perhaps my accusation of you being a dishonest individual when it comes to this type of discussion is on the mark.



Agreed - what you would be seeing are slightly less overt practices and more rhetoric type propaganda. Interesting you brought up the Nazis - they used an economic crash in the 1920's to stir up division and hatred against those perceived to be the enemy. This was furthered by a refusal to accept the Germans lost WWI on the battlefield but were somehow betrayed by German Jews and other 'undesirables' to him such as social democrats. That is how the Nazi party started rampant anti-Semitism in Germany in the 30s.
You could argue that Trump is trying to divide and demonize along similar lines with his build the wall rhetoric - it is a clear and blatant attempt to demonise all Mexicans as drug dealers and rapists etc - we've gone over 'The Border Wall' before so I won't go there again but another example imo of white Nationalist rhetoric in action.

Well, well - we agree. Oh no, wait... you are trying to argue that Trump is actually Hitler by building the wall which is to protect the border where people and drugs are crossing illegally every day. It is border control. Its been around for centuries. Most countries have policies and protections that try to control who is coming into the country. How about you provide some examples of Trump or his administration trying to expel, eliminate or exterminate American minorities or something that would actually support this wild accusation of white nationalism?


It doesn’t clearly support anything. It is of course an indicator – but living standards I’ll bet are still well under the norm and I’m not sure the type of employment is conducive to long term growth anyway. Are people earning a living wage? – 80% of Americans live “paycheck to paycheck” – hardly a sweeping reform of life for minorities. Not sure about the prison reform stuff and the reversal of the Clinton admin items – I’ll take your word for that. The General point remains – you can’t offset unemployment stats v General behaviour.

Again, this seems dishonest. There was more to what i said and provided than unemployment rates. You choose to ignore those in order to narrow the argument and make it appear that i am equating only unemployment as evidence against white nationalism. And you poo-poo the relevance of the prison reform stuff. You are also ignoring the broader concept that i am also putting forward that hypothesizes (perhaps incorrectly) that a white supremacist or white nationalist administration would be doing everything they could to ensure that all the relevant markers would be going in the opposite direction. Yet there is nothing, not one policy or directive or anything that anyone has put forward yet to show that this is happening.

Just so you know you do have an option to simply concede that maybe an accusation of this being a white nationalist administration is unsupported and therefore unfounded at this time.

[Real ale Madrid]

Give me a break. You are trying to position yourself as some sort of victim because i asked you to engage more honestly? If i put forward a simple premise, then i expect people to be able to grasp it and argue it on its merits and not engage in one word or one sentence responses. If you don't then you are either too entrenched or too ignorant to bother with. If you dont like being called out on a crap response then go find a safe space.


So to summarize I'm:


Playing the victim
Dishonest
Unable to grasp simple points
Entrenched
Ignorant
Crap
In need of finding a safe space



All because I had to temerity to disagree with your original point, which I thought was fairly weak while calling out repeated behavior which I don't agree with in a civil way. To be fair my riposte was flimsy enough as well but not without merit. Anyway I've tried to engage in a civil manner with both you and Mark but checking out now Stu. All the best.

[dahamsta]

Ignore lists lads, or just post your point without engaging personally. I favour the latter, you're wasting your time debating with people that can't or won't provide sources for their opinions. Ideally I would tighten up the rules in here and come down harder on the rhetoric, but I don't have time. I always welcome moderators, as long as they commit to remaining neutral.

[The Fly]

I'd like to know how many of the posters actually live, or have lived, in America?

[peadar1987]

I'd like to know how many of the posters actually live, or have lived, in America?

Me, nope. Ireland till 2009, UK since then

[SkStu]

I’ve lived and worked there (J1 and another job assignment) but too long ago and not long enough to really count. I do have close family and friends scattered throughout the Midwest and Northeast that I interact with quite regularly.

[ontheotherhand]

Midwest and Northeast. Sounds about right SkStu. :)

I've been here for a decade, mainly on the West coast...which also sounds about right!

[samhaydenjr]

I'd like to know how many of the posters actually live, or have lived, in America?


I’ve lived and worked there (J1 and another job assignment) but too long ago and not long enough to really count. I do have close family and friends scattered throughout the Midwest and Northeast that I interact with quite regularly.

Similar to Stu, J1 in '97, lived in Canada from '99-'01 and since 2009

[Stuttgart88]

J1 (NY / Long Island) in 1988 - I flew over the day after the Dutch game in Gelsenkirchen. Another summer in 1989 (Boston this time). Multiple visits since including WC 1994, and I worked for a bank HQ'd in Charlotte, NC, which is the furthest west of I95 I've been.

[Real ale Madrid]

I opened the thread referencing Rutger Bregman - the Dutch historian / author / journalist. He was asked who he would vote for if he was an american - I found his analysis spot on:


A couple of people have asked me who I would vote for in the Democratic primaries, if I could. Now obviously, I’m not an American citizen. But the US presidency is a rather powerful institution, so I think I’m allowed to have an opinion!
Here’s who I would vote for: Bernie Sanders.
Yes, I think other candidates – like Warren or Yang – are really good as well. I don’t like Warren's backpedaling on Medicare-for-all though, and even though I *love* Andrew Yang’s basic income advocacy, I don’t understand why he’s against a wealth tax for the super-rich
Sanders, meanwhile, diagnoses the core sickness of the United States. Inequality.
We all know the crazy statistics. The working class today pays higher tax rates than the billionaire class, the top 0.1% owns about as much as the bottom 90%. - etc.
A democracy cannot survive this way. Such radical inequality is a poison that destroys the bonds between people.
And maybe this is my European perspective, but Sanders’ ideals and proposals seem totally common sense to me.
To most people in developed countries – even for conservatives – it's bewildering that policies like Medicare-for-all are seen as 'radical' or 'socialist' in the US. Currently, the US has the most expensive health care system in the world, and life expectancy is going *down*
A system like the French or the Germans currently have would save millions of lives and billions of dollars.
Moreover, I don’t see Sanders as a revolutionary socialist. He’s an old-fashioned social-democrat.
Social democracy means universal health care, high-quality public education, much higher taxes on the rich, parental leave, child care, or in short: policies that are hugely popular and work really well in the countries that tried them
One of the things I love most about Bernie Sanders is his earnestness. With him it’s always about the issues, because he knows what’s at stake. Unlike many journalists, politics is not a game to him. He's the opposite of cynicism.
To be clear, I don’t think anyone in the world should have as much power as the US president. But if we must have someone in that office, then let it be an authentically good person. I think that's what Bernie Sanders is.
Finally, I believe he’ll beat Trump.

https://twitter.com/abc/status/1220351246088929280

1220351246088929280

[SkStu]

The thing, i think, about Sanders and Warren is that no matter how we see it as Euros, their policies are seen as extreme in the USA and their platform as presented has not got a hope of getting through Congress. That is a real issue. They don't demonstrate the ability to find a way towards the middle in their platform or rhetoric - which they really would have to do to get anything done.

Despite the loud voices on both sides that get far too much attention (and warps our perception of reality), most of America is fairly moderate (neither far left or far right). While Sanders, i believe, could get the backing of most of the democratic base at about 25%-30% with the large field currently in the race, I do not think that he has the backing of the Democratic party. They are going to keep the field fairly large as long as possible into the primaries and do as much damage to Bernie as possible along the way. It would actually be good fun if he ran in the general as an independent but suicide for the Dems and he'd never do that. With Sanders or Warren as nominee, the democrats would be very likely to hemorrhage some votes from their own moderates and most votes from independents. Despite the desire of many on the democrat side to get rid of Trump at any cost, I do think a good chunk of the Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar vote would stay at home on election night because, to these folks, the economy does matter a lot. Whereas if one of those three was the nominee, the Sanders/Warren block would likely vote them (as long as there was no dirty tricks like in 2016). If i was to pick someone from the Democratic race that i could vote for it would be Yang or Gabbard but i'm mental.

[Stuttgart88]

I also thing it's amazing how Sanders is seen as a dangerous borderline communist. From what I can tell he's a northern European style social democrat. However my instinct is that he'll be an easy target to beat, too easy to label a radical socialist. I think he's bit stubborn in that regard, the way he describes himself, like Corbyn. Whereas on everything else I see him as very different to Corbyn. I think he genuinely gets things vis a vis the US's institutional protection of money and privilege. He understands Wall Street and I think he has a more nuanced understanding of macro economics etc. Corbyn was nothing but an immature student who hadn't grown up. Banks are bad, bankers are bad, wealth is bad, nationalise everything. I'm not saying he'd be my preferred candidate - I'd run a mile from Biden - but in Europe he'd be pretty normal. The UK could do with an articulate and credible candidate / party arguing well from Sanders' perspective.

[samhaydenjr]

It would actually be good fun if he ran in the general as an independent but suicide for the Dems and he'd never do that. With Sanders or Warren as nominee, the democrats would be very likely to hemorrhage some votes from their own moderates and most votes from independents.


I also thing it's amazing how Sanders is seen as a dangerous borderline communist. From what I can tell he's a northern European style social democrat. However my instinct is that he'll be an easy target to beat, too easy to label a radical socialist.

On the point of Sanders' elect-ability, in head-to-head polls against Trump in 2016, Sanders was ahead in all but one out of 27, often with double-figure leads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United_Sta tes_presidential_election#Polls_conducted_in_2016 - this time around in 100 head-to-heads so far, Sanders has trailed in 9: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_United_Sta tes_presidential_election#Bernie_Sanders

[SkStu]

I think some of the information in here will be of interest given the recent conversation here. A host of issues that we have discussed. A synopsis:

1) satisfaction with race relations advanced 14 points, from 22% at 01/2017 to 36% 01/2020.

2) satisfaction with position of blacks and other racial minorities in the nation jumped 9 points, from 37% 01/2017 to 46% 01/2020.

3) satisfaction with the economy up 22 points since he took office.

4) average satisfaction across all issues is at a 15 year high.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/284033/americans-improved-mixed.aspx


As Trump enters his re-election year, Americans are more positive on eight key issues than they were just before he took office in January 2017.

Gallup records double-digit increases in public satisfaction with the nation's economy, security from terrorism, military strength and the state of race relations.

Satisfaction is also up by between six and nine points on crime, the position of blacks and other racial minorities, the distribution of income and wealth, and the opportunity for a person to get ahead through hard work.

Over the same period, Americans have grown slightly less satisfied on three issues: abortion (down 7 points), the level of immigration (-6) and the environment (-6).

Also, interesting article linked below about his support among blacks at the moment being at 34% but that it drops into to the 12%, 14% & 17% against Biden, Sanders and Warren respectively. And all still higher than the 6% he received in 2016.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/black-voter-support-for-trump-at-highest-levels-could-seal-2020-win


Those levels are the best for a GOP president or presidential candidate since 1968.

Maybe he’s not a white supremacist after all lads?

[osarusan]

Interesting to see what impact the Bolton book excerpts will have on Republican position not to call witnesses.

At least a couple (Romney and Collins) have wavered a bit, but none have explicitly supported the idea.

There must be a huge amount of straw polling going on to see where public opinion is on this.

[osarusan]

Lamar Alexander, one of the moderate Republicans that might have voted for witnesses has said he will not do so, which means the balance is now going to be 50:50, which would see the motion fail.

His reasoning seems skewed, to say the least:
"There is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offence."

...

"The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday."

What exactly is he saying has been 'proven'? That Trump withheld the aid for political favours? But that it doesn't matter because it's not impeachable anyway?

That's how I interpret it, but if that's the case, why spend so long denying it happened in the first place.

[SkStu]

It is an interesting one. That is what he is saying Osarusan. Basically one of the lines of defence put forward by Trumps team - a kind of "even if" argument. "Deny deny deny any wrongdoing but even if he did, it is not impeachable anyway". I think it was Dershowitz who made that argument on Monday.

Alexander is retiring and wont run for reelection later this year so he has absolutely nothing to lose and Tennessee is a safe red state so little political capital for the party to lose in the 2020 Senate election race there. Murkowski and Collins are also interesting as they are in what would be considered purple states so there is a lot of politicking involved in whatever they decide. Romney just hates Trump :D. On the flip side, there are rumours that a number (1 or 2) Democrats plan to vote against removal (essentially finding Trump not guilty) for essentially the same political reasons. Feinstein was one name mentioned. The vote against more witnesses probably will give them cover to vote along party lines though. Maybe? Who knows.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/28/trio-democratic-senators-consider-acquit-trump-108130

Re Feinstein, I didn’t see the clarification: https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/4602585002

[osarusan]

It is an interesting one. That is what he is saying Osarusan. Basically one of the lines of defence put forward by Trumps team - a kind of "even if" argument. "Deny deny deny any wrongdoing but even if he did, it is not impeachable anyway". I think it was Dershowitz who made that argument on Monday.


I think they covered all bases with the defense. "He didn't do it, but if he did, it's not an issue." I'm surprised Alexander hasn't been pressed on what exactly he believes has been proven.

Vote on the way soon, Romney and Collins may vote with the Democrats, but that won't be enough, even if all Democrats keep the faith.

This was always likely to be the outcome, so I never understood what the Democrats were aiming for with this whole thing. Yes, it brings good headlines in the Congress, but it was always going to end like this, and will be portrayed as a win, and an acquittal, a statement of innocence, for Trump. Whatever about the last two, there's no doubt it's a win for him.

[osarusan]

51-49 in favour of not calling witnesses, which paves the way to Trump being acquitted.

[The Fly]

51-49 in favour of not calling witnesses, which paves the way to Trump being acquitted.

That was always gonna happen.

[osarusan]

That was always gonna happen.

Yeah, and so obviously going to happen that you wonder what the Democrats have planned for after the acquittal...how they try and spin it then.

[SkStu]

I mentioned this quite a few posts ago about the DNCs approach to Sanders. They screwed him in 2016 and they’ll screw him again. Hillary making comments about running again. The Democratic Party is an absolute shambles. Cutting Sanders off at the knees like this would be suicide and would make it even easier than it already seems to be for Trump to be elected in 2020.

Do you guys really think that this bunch is any less morally bankrupt than the Republican Party?

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083?__twitter_impression=true

It will be interesting to see if the rule changes by the Dems will cover the issue of puns at all.


Yeah, and so obviously going to happen that you wonder what the Democrats have planned for after the acquittal...how they try and spin it then.

I think they’ve already got their key messages on this. “It’s not a legitimate acquittal if there weren’t witnesses called, black mark against this acquittal, black mark against the presidents name etc etc.”

I heard Chuck Schumer make those points yesterday already. They’re happy with the smear job. It’s been a tactic of theirs for a long time.

Hopefully they get on with their business of selecting a candidate and implementing legislation in the house and all these failed and unfounded attempts to reverse the results of 2016 will take a backseat.

[osarusan]

Crazy stuff from Rubio:

"Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office."

Here's a link - just one crazy comment after another, including his mention of Putin.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/480912-rubio-impeachable-actions-dont-necessarily-mean-a-president-should-be-removed

[peadar1987]

Crazy stuff from Rubio:

"Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office."

Here's a link - just one crazy comment after another, including his mention of Putin.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/480912-rubio-impeachable-actions-dont-necessarily-mean-a-president-should-be-removed

Well... Definitely something to be said for not impeaching. If Trump is removed from office, Mike Pence takes over. I reckon the fact that Trump is a moron has meant that he hasn't been able to do as much damage as otherwise. I think Pence is a horrible man, and shrewd enough to actually push through some really harmful things.

[dahamsta]

Pence is just as guilty as Trump on this specific impeachable offence though, the evidence is there that he knew too.

[SkStu]

The DNC really got the excitement and momentum behind them on their opening night in Iowa yesterday... lulz.

Turnout also far lower than anticipated.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/04/iowa-caucus-low-turnout-110674


“It’s an enthusiasm gap,” said Michael Ceraso, who worked for Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign and was Pete Buttigieg’s New Hampshire director before leaving the campaign last year.

Since the start of the campaign, a critical part of the candidates’ electability-based appeals had been a promise that they were uniquely suited to rouse an unreliable electorate in the fall.

The lesson from Monday, Ceraso said, is that “None of these candidates right now are inspiring what they’re claiming they’re inspiring.”

...

And it wasn’t just the turnout totals that were worrisome for Democrats. It was the makeup of the electorate.

Entrance polls showed first-time caucus-goers down this year, to about one-third of all caucus-goers. That fell lower not only than 2008, when nearly 60 percent of caucus-goers were first-time participants, but also 2016.

It was a deflating acknowledgment for a party that is desperate to register and turn out first-time voters in the fall.

If they could do it any year, this would seem to be it. Turnout had surged in the 2018 midterm elections, fueling a strong year for Democrats. And party officials believed that if they could maintain that momentum in 2020, they could not only defeat Trump, but make additional gains in Congress and in the nation’s state houses.

In Iowa, the conditions for high turnout were especially ripe. Not only were Democrats anxious about Trump, but the state’s early date on the primary calendar meant a large number of candidates were still in the hunt — many of them with their own aggressive turnout operations in the state. Party officials expanded the number of caucus sites in some counties and booked larger rooms.

[osarusan]

52-48 and 53-47 in Trump's favour. Romney voted against him on one of the articles, 'in accordance with [his] Mormon faith'.

If memory serves correctly, Romney is no Trump fan and was one of the last ones, or the ones that needed most convincing, to get behind him 4 years ago.

[Real ale Madrid]

I see professional racist, homophobe, anti feminist, anti choice, and all round good guy Rich Limbaugh won the Presidential medal of Freedom - the countries highest civilian honour.

But no white supremacist ideology because numbers!

[tetsujin1979]

Also, Limbaugh announced he has cancer. Which is a terrible, terrible shame. Terrible.

[SkStu]

If you are celebrating someone has been diagnosed with late stage cancer, that is low. Very low. Irrespective of differences of opinion, no matter how much we disagree, we should try to show a little class and at a minimum keep that type of schadenfreude to ourselves. There are very few individuals in this world who would be deserving of this type of celebration by decent people like us.

[Fizzer]

What are your thoughts on Limbaugh Stu?

[SkStu]

Ah, to be honest, I don’t know much about him and haven’t researched him very much at all - apart from reading what’s been in the news since his announcement about his cancer. I’d heard of him for sure amd was somewhat aware of how divisive he was. There was one article I saw a couple of days ago - snopes maybe - that concluded that of all the quotes attributed to him only a handful could be truly substantiated. So I don’t have many thoughts on him tbh. I just don’t think he really deserves to have people celebrating a terminal cancer diagnosis. It’s pretty low class. That’s all I was saying.

https://twitter.com/numbersmuncher/status/1226200604218994689?s=21

Pure savagery.

[dahamsta]

If you were around when Hitler topped himself, would you have celebrated? How about Pol Pot? Saddam Hussein?

Some people are scum and deserve what happens to them. Call it karma if you like, I don't believe in it personally, but I for one am delighted Limbaugh's time on this earth has been shortened, and look forward to Trump, Putin and their ilk leaving.

[dahamsta]

Some facts for the Trump fans to pretend don't exist:

Trump's record on the military, veterans, and military families:

• ⁠Pardoned multiple war criminals, which stomped on long standing military values, discipline, and command. Trump has no military experience (May&Nov, 2019)
• ⁠Trump mocked Lt. Col. Vindman for his rank and uniform. He threatened said purple heart officer, resulting in the Army providing him protection • ⁠Trump’s Chief of Staff worked—in secret—to deny comprehensive health coverage to Vietnam Vets who have suffered from Agent Orange.
• ⁠There is a facility in Tijuana for US veterans that Trump deported. Wounded war vet, Sen Duckworth (D) marked Veterans Day 2019 by visiting this facility
• ⁠Russia took control of the main U.S. military facility in Syria abandoned on Trump’s orders. Russia now owns the airstrip we built. • ⁠On Oct 7, 2019, Trump abruptly withdrew support from America's allies in Syria after a phone call with Turkey's president (Erdogan). Turkey subsequently bombed US Special Forces.
• ⁠Trump sent thousands of American troops to defend the oil assets of the country that perpetrated 9/11. • ⁠In Sept 2019, he made an Air Force cargo crew, flying from the U.S. to Kuwait stop in Scotland (where there's no U.S. base) to refuel at a commercial airport (where it costs more), so they could stay overnight at a Trump property (which isn't close to the airport). Trump’s golf courses are losing money, so he's forcing the military to pay for 5-star nights there.
• ⁠In Sept, 2019, Pentagon pulled funds for military schools, daycare to pay for Trump's border wall.
• ⁠In Aug, 2019, emails revealed that three of Trump's Mar-a-Lago pals, who are now running Veterans Affairs, are rampant with meddling. "They had no experience in veterans affairs (none of them even served in the military) nor underwent any kind of approval process to serve as de facto managers. Yet, with Trump’s approval, they directed actions and criticized operations without any oversight. They wasted valuable staff time in hundreds of pages of communications and meetings, emails show. Emails reveal disdainful attitudes within the department to the trio’s meddling."
• ⁠Veterans graves will be "dug up" for the border wall, after Trump instructed aides to seize private property. Trump told officials he would pardon them if they break the law by illegally seizing property
• ⁠Children of deployed US troops will no longer get automatic American citizenship if born overseas during deployment. This includes US troops posted abroad for years at a time (August 28, 2019)
• ⁠On August 2, 2019, Trump requisitioned military retirement funds towards border wall
• ⁠On July 31, 2019, Trump ordered the Navy rescind medals to prosecutors who were prosecuted war criminals
• ⁠Trump denied a U.S. Marine of 6 years entry into the United States for his scheduled citizenship interview (Reported July 17, 2019)
• ⁠Trump made the U.S. Navy Blue Angels violate ethics rules by having them fly at his July 4th political campaign event (July 4, 2019)
• ⁠Trump demanded US military chiefs stand next to him at 4th of July parade (reported July 2, 2019)
• ⁠In June, 2019, Trump sent troops to the border to paint the fence for a better "aesthetic appearance"
• ⁠Trump used his D-Day interview at a cemetery commemorating fallen US soldiers to attack a Vietnam veteran (June 6, 2019)
• ⁠Trump started his D-Day commemoration speech by attacking a private citizen (Bette Midler, of all people) (reported on June 4th, 2019)
• ⁠Trump made his 2nd wife, Marla Maples, sign a prenup that would have cut off all child support if Tiffany joined the military (reported June 4th, 2019)
• ⁠On May 27, 2019, Trump turned away US military from his Memorial Day speech because they were from the destroyer USS John S. McCain
• ⁠Trump ordered the USS John McCain out of sight during his visit to Japan (May 15, 2019). The ship's name was subsequently covered. (May 27, 2019)
• ⁠Trump purged 200,000 veterans healthcare applications (due to known administrative errors within VA’s enrollment system) (reported on May 13, 2019)
• ⁠Trump deported a spouse of fallen Army soldier killed in Afghanistan, leaving their daughter parentless (April 16, 2019)

...more to follow...

[dahamsta]

Wait, wait, there's more....

• ⁠On March 20, 2019, Trump complained that a deceased war hero didn't thank him for his funeral
• ⁠On Feb 25, 2019, Trump diverted military housing funds to pay for his border wall. A judge subsequently denied this. In July 2019, SCOTUS ruled that Trump could in fact divert military housing funds to pay for his wall.
• ⁠Between 12/22/2018, and 1/25/2019, Trump refused to sign his party's funding bill, which shut down the government, forcing the Coast Guard to go without pay, which made service members rely on food pantries. However, his appointees got a $10,000 pay raise
• ⁠He banned service members from serving based on gender identity (1/22/2019)
• ⁠He denied female troops access to birth control to limit sexual activity (on-going. Published Jan 18, 2019)
• ⁠He tried to deport a marine vet who is a U.S.-born citizen (Jan 16, 2019)
• ⁠When a man was caught swindling veterans pensions for high-interest “cash advances," Trump's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau fined him $1. As a reminder, the Trump administration's goal was to dismantle the CFPB, installing Mick Mulvaney as the director, who publicly stated the bureau should be disbanded. (Jan 26, 2019)
• ⁠He called a retired general a 'dog' with a 'big, dumb mouth' (Jan 1, 2019)
• ⁠He increased privatization of the VA, leading to longer waits and higher taxpayer cost (2018)
• ⁠He finally visited troops 2 years after taking office, but only after 154 vacation days at his properties (Dec 26, 2018)
• ⁠He revealed a covert Seal Team 5 deployment, including names and faces, on Twitter during his visit to Iraq (Dec 26, 2018)
• ⁠Trump lied to deployed troops that he gave them a 10% raise (12/26/2018). He tried giving the military a raise that was lower than the standard living adjustment. Congress told him that idea wasn't going to work. Then after giving them the raise that Congress made him, he lied about it pretending that it was larger than Obama's. It wasn't.
• ⁠He fired service members living with HIV just before the 2018 holidays (Dec 19, 2018-present)
• ⁠He tried to slash disability and unemployment benefits for Veterans to $0, and eliminate the unemployability extrascheduler rating (Dec 17, 2018)
• ⁠He called troops on Thanksgiving and told them he's most thankful for himself (Thanksgiving, 2018)
• ⁠He urged Florida to not count deployed military votes (Nov 12, 2018)
• ⁠He canceled an Arlington Cemetery visit on Veterans Day due to light rain (Nov 12, 2018)
• ⁠While in Europe commemorating the end of WWI, he didn't attend the ceremony at a US cemetery due to the rain -- other world leaders went anyway (Nov 10, 2018)
• ⁠He used troops as a political prop by sending them on a phantom mission to the border and made them miss Thanksgiving with their families (Oct-Dec, 2018)
• ⁠He stopped using troops as a political prop immediately after the election. However, the troops remained in muddy camps on the border (Nov 7, 2018)
• ⁠Trump changed the GI Bill through his Forever GI Act, causing the VA to miss veteran benefits, including housing allowances. This caused many veterans to run out of food and rent. (reported October 7, 2018)
• ⁠Trump doubled the rejection rate for veterans requesting family deportation protections (July 5, 2018)
• ⁠Trump deported active-duty spouses (11,800 military families face this problem as of April 2018)
• ⁠He forgot a fallen soldier's name (below) during a call to his pregnant widow, then attacked her the next day (Oct 23-24, 2017)
• ⁠He sent commandos into an ambush due to a lack of intel, and sends contractors to pick them up, resulting in a commando being left behind, tortured, and executed. (Trump approved the mission because Bannon told him Obama didn't have the guts to do it) (Oct 4, 2017)
• ⁠He blocked a veteran group on Twitter (June 2017)
• ⁠He ordered the discharge of active-duty immigrant troops with good records (2017-present)
• ⁠He deported veterans (2017-present)
• ⁠He said he knows more about ISIS than American generals (Oct 2016)
• ⁠On October 3, 2016, Trump said vets get PTSD because they aren't strong (note: yes, he said it's 'because they aren't strong.' He didn't say it's 'because they're weak.' This distinction is important because of Snopes)
• ⁠Trump accepted a Purple Heart from a fan at one of his rallies and said: “I always wanted to get the Purple Heart. This was much easier.” (Aug 2, 2016)
• ⁠Trump attacks Gold Star families - Myeshia Johnson--gold star widow, Khan family--gold star parents, etc. (2016-present)
• ⁠Trump sent funds raised from a January 2016 veterans benefit to the Donald J Trump Foundation instead of veterans charities (the foundation has since been ordered shut because of fraud) (Jan, 2016)
• ⁠Trump said he has "more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military" because he went to a military-style academy (2015 biography)
• ⁠Trump said he doesn't consider POWs heroes because they were caught. He said he prefers people who were not caught (July 18, 2015)
• ⁠Trump said having unprotected sex was his own personal Vietnam (1998)
• ⁠For a decade, Trump sought to kick veterans off of Fifth Avenue because he found them unsightly nuisances outside of Trump Tower. “While disabled veterans should be given every opportunity to earn a living, is it fair to do so to the detriment of the city as a whole or its tax paying citizens and businesses?” - 1991
• ⁠Trump dodged the draft 5 times by having a doctor diagnose him with bone spurs.
• ⁠No Trump in America has ever served in the military; this spans 5 generations, and every branch of the family tree. In fact, the reason his grandfather immigrated to America was to avoid military service

via (https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/f0qvay/pentagon_officials_letter_vowing_the_department/fgxa6f1/)

[SkStu]

If you were around when Hitler topped himself, would you have celebrated? How about Pol Pot? Saddam Hussein?

Some people are scum and deserve what happens to them. Call it karma if you like, I don't believe in it personally, but I for one am delighted Limbaugh's time on this earth has been shortened, and look forward to Trump, Putin and their ilk leaving.

Are you really comparing racist or bigoted comments by a shock jock with the actions of those who are guilty of killing and maiming millions of civilians?? Get some perspective for goodness sake.

As I said above there are very few individuals in this world who would be deserving of this type of celebration by decent people like us.

As an aside, I’m not sure why you combined my two posts above as they are completely unrelated. We cannot post two unrelated posts in a row?

[dahamsta]

The racist and bigoted comments made by people like him have destroyed America, and the UK, and many other countries. They are destroying democracy, they are making authoritarian rule the default. Sure, it's combined with other problems like education and health, but those problems in turn were caused by... people like Limbaugh. Has he committed murders? No. Has he caused them? Probably. Has he caused deaths? Definitely. Screw him, I hope he rots in the hell that I don't believe in.

When I see multiple posts in a row, I merge them. 99% of the time it's post count whoring. It's not directed at you. Not everything is about you.

[SkStu]

I wasn’t making anything about me. We’re having a conversation are we not? Read my post again. I asked a question about whether *we* (the collective population of this website) can or can’t now post two posts in a row.

I asked the question because I was concerned that a post about the presidential campaign being run by Biden and how he attacked Buttigieg really effectively would get lost in something completely unrelated.

I could understand the desire to combine posts posted shortly after one another that are about the same thing and I understand the preference to multiquote v multipost. I just see this as different. I’m not an unreasonable chap. But as I said, I see this example a little different.

Re: Limbaugh etc, I’m not here to defend him or his words, just think the stuff on here is lacking in perspective and class. Yay cancer!

[Fizzer]

Michael J Fox might be permitted a little chuckle of satisfaction perhaps?

[The Fly]

I opened the thread referencing Rutger Bregman - the Dutch historian / author / journalist. He was asked who he would vote for if he was an american - I found his analysis spot on:

"A couple of people have asked me who I would vote for in the Democratic primaries, if I could. Now obviously, I’m not an American citizen. But the US presidency is a rather powerful institution, so I think I’m allowed to have an opinion!
Here’s who I would vote for: Bernie Sanders.
Yes, I think other candidates – like Warren or Yang – are really good as well. I don’t like Warren's backpedaling on Medicare-for-all though, and even though I *love* Andrew Yang’s basic income advocacy, I don’t understand why he’s against a wealth tax for the super-rich
Sanders, meanwhile, diagnoses the core sickness of the United States. Inequality.
We all know the crazy statistics. The working class today pays higher tax rates than the billionaire class, the top 0.1% owns about as much as the bottom 90%. - etc.
A democracy cannot survive this way. Such radical inequality is a poison that destroys the bonds between people.
And maybe this is my European perspective, but Sanders’ ideals and proposals seem totally common sense to me.
To most people in developed countries – even for conservatives – it's bewildering that policies like Medicare-for-all are seen as 'radical' or 'socialist' in the US. Currently, the US has the most expensive health care system in the world, and life expectancy is going *down*
A system like the French or the Germans currently have would save millions of lives and billions of dollars.
Moreover, I don’t see Sanders as a revolutionary socialist. He’s an old-fashioned social-democrat.
Social democracy means universal health care, high-quality public education, much higher taxes on the rich, parental leave, child care, or in short: policies that are hugely popular and work really well in the countries that tried them
One of the things I love most about Bernie Sanders is his earnestness. With him it’s always about the issues, because he knows what’s at stake. Unlike many journalists, politics is not a game to him. He's the opposite of cynicism.
To be clear, I don’t think anyone in the world should have as much power as the US president. But if we must have someone in that office, then let it be an authentically good person. I think that's what Bernie Sanders is.
Finally, I believe he’ll beat Trump."



I love it when people mention 'crazy' statistics. Here's another for you -

According to the most recent figures, the top 1% in America earned 20.65% of the national income, and paid 39.04% of all federal income taxes. The figures for the top 5% are 36.07% and 59.58% respectively.

Has Rutger outlined what he thinks would constitute a fairer distribution? Can you?

[The Fly]

Can one of the mods explain why my reply to RAM's post keeps appearing as a link?

[pineapple stu]

It tends to happen when you quote an embedded tweet for some reason. The "link" in your post goes to the same tweet RAM posted.

I do agree with you in general though. Ireland is different to the US of course, but the stats here (from the CSO (https://statbank.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp)) are that 65.8% of people who earned less than 40k - accounting for 31.1% of total pay in Ireland - but the only paid 9.9% of the total tax take. 6.1% of workers earned more than 100k - 26.7% of total pay - but paid 53.3% of tax.

There's been a lot said in this election here about how the higher earners need to pay more tax, but those figures don't support that view to me. If anything, the system is skewed too much the other way, but the 65.8% presumably carry 65.8% of the votes, so we end up with populist politics...

[The Fly]

It tends to happen when you quote an embedded tweet for some reason. The "link" in your post goes to the same tweet RAM posted.

Ahh ok. I couldn't understand why it kept happening, hence the deleted replies.


I do agree with you in general though. Ireland is different to the US of course, but the stats here (from the CSO (https://statbank.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp)) are that 65.8% of people who earned less than 40k - accounting for 31.1% of total pay in Ireland - but the only paid 9.9% of the total tax take. 6.1% of workers earned more than 100k - 26.7% of total pay - but paid 53.3% of tax.

There's been a lot said in this election here about how the higher earners need to pay more tax, but those figures don't support that view to me. If anything, the system is skewed too much the other way, but the 65.8% presumably carry 65.8% of the votes, so we end up with populist politics...

Rhetoric is a powerful thing, and if rhetoric is the standard by which people measure presidential candidates then Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would probably be a great president. If facts are the yardstick however, then she'd probably be a disaster.

[The Fly]

The racist and bigoted comments made by people like him have destroyed America, and the UK, and many other countries. They are destroying democracy, they are making authoritarian rule the default. Sure, it's combined with other problems like education and health, but those problems in turn were caused by... people like Limbaugh. Has he committed murders? No. Has he caused them? Probably. Has he caused deaths? Definitely. Screw him, I hope he rots in the hell that I don't believe in.


America and Britain have been in comparative decline for some time, and the notion that nutters like the above (or Katie Hopkins say) are to blame for that is ludicrous. They're just unfortunate symptoms of it.

[Real ale Madrid]

I love it when people mention 'crazy' statistics. Here's another for you -

According to the most recent figures, the top 1% in America earned 20.65% of the national income, and paid 39.04% of all federal income taxes. The figures for the top 5% are 36.07% and 59.58% respectively.

Has Rutger outlined what he thinks would constitute a fairer distribution? Can you?

I'm not sure I see anything crazy about what you posted. Those stats seem pretty much in line with most countries. Richer people in general pay more tax. It's hardly groundbreaking. What the US has an issue with is inequality.
Warren Buffet famously commented over 15 years ago now that he paid a lesser rate of tax than his secretary. America is clearly an unequal society. CBS did an interesting piece on it recently. (No pun intended incase the Pun Police are around :) )

https://youtu.be/DANUXO-GQwU

Once upon a Time a Republican government in the US made the super rich pay up to 70% on estate taxes as well as other wealth taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax



In general, the United States federal income tax is progressive, as rates of tax generally increase as taxable income increases, at least with respect to individuals that earn wage income. ... As recently as the late 1970s, the top marginal tax rate in the U.S. was 70%


Ahh ok. I couldn't understand why it kept happening, hence the deleted replies.



Rhetoric is a powerful thing, and if rhetoric is the standard by which people measure presidential candidates then Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would probably be a great president. If facts are the yardstick however, then she'd probably be a disaster.

What did AOC do to you?

Last I heard of her she was saving NYC taxpayers $3bn in subsidies for the world's richest person. Tangible savings for the people there - the absolute opposite of rhetoric.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/dec/06/amazon-new-york-city-offices-lease

Not bad.

[SkStu]

Michael J Fox might be permitted a little chuckle of satisfaction perhaps?

My curiosity got the better of me. Yes, yes he would.

And it reminds me of that Curb Your Enthusiasm episode. :D


Larry: “He’s upset because I shushed him earlier.”

“You know he has a condition…he shakes.”

Larry: “Yeah you’re right, maybe it was a Parkinson’s shake.”

“It could have been a Parkinson’s shake.”

Larry: “So….wait is it p1ssed or Parkinson’s? I don’t know.”

(Probably the most foot.ie friendly Parkinson’s quote I could find from that episode!)