Support NeoGAF

[SamVimes]

Yeh, Biden still refers to the 90s crime bill as the Biden Bill.

But I guess no one has been retweeting that, or posting it on their Facebook walls.

Plus he has this awesome thing called a penis.

Biden wasn't running.

 

[RastaMentality]

Yeh, Biden still refers to the 90s crime bill as the Biden Bill.

But I guess no one has been retweeting that, or posting it on their Facebook walls.

Plus he has this awesome thing called a penis.

He defended it back in the summer and didn't even apologize for any part of it. yikes.

I guess that's what having a penis & a "bro code~" with Obama gets you.

Biden wasn't running.

The crime bill is basically the sole thing (for better or for worse) that people point to for causing mass incarceration. the sitting VP who wrote it should get some more flack i feel!

 

[mo60]

Here's a question I haven't seen talked about a lot. How would Hillary have done against anyone else but Trump? Would she still have lost?

Hillary vs Cruz?
Hillary vs Rubio?
Hillary vs Jeb?

She would have beat all three but probably not by a crazy amount.

 

[Pixieking]

So apparently reports of hate crimes have spiked more than they did after 9/11?

Who would have ever thought the election of a new President would do that?

This is just crushing.

This is going to hurt the resurgence Democrats need to reinvigorate the DNC by the way. People are going to be afraid to volunteer for fear of getting assaulted in some way.

It has the potential to hurt the Dems/DNC, yes... But it also has the potential to create a larger grassroots and activist base than if hate crimes didn't spike. What needs to happen is motivation of the young/youngish base.

Anyone who was 16 on November 1st can vote in the 2018 mid-terms, right? Just think about that. Seriously, think. That's an awe-inspiring thought - these are kids who have had Hillary and the Democrats message of hope crushed. These are kids whose parents are saying "You may suffer more bullying at school because Trump has normalised being racist/sexist/anti-gay/anti-Muslim". Kids whose belief in the environment getting better is now trashed.

That's an unbelievably powerful base the Dems can tap into. And even if they don't vote in mid-terms, they're going to go onto college or into the working-world knowing that all the hate and misery before them right to 2020 is because of Trump and the Republicans.

This is why I want to get out and help... Because that's a massive base to work with. And that's before you get to anyone who was 18 and voted in this election.

It may be a good point to actually use Obama's message of hope and change - Yes We Can!

 

[Diablos]

Thinking about it a lot.. But if you really look Trump responds really well to flattery. Like when Hillary said nice things about his kids and how well it reflects on them he said how she was a fighter and never gives up etc. And his acceptance speech he praised her because she probably was nice to him on the phone.

Maybe for all of our sakes it would be good for some of the Dems behind the scenes to kiss his ass and see if that helps.

Ah yes so just appease him like he's a dictator. Fantastic.

I don't think you'll see Obama openly criticizing Trump much anymore, because the second he does Trump is going to put an even bigger target on his legacy (and brag about it) while hate groups will probably get even more upset. Obama had to kiss his ass too by saying that when Trump succeeds, the world succeeds. That had to be one of the hardest days of his life.

 

[A Link to the Past]

She would have beat all three but probably not by a crazy amount.

I'm of that mind, yeah. It's certainly not like Trump did poorly among Republicans, so if Clinton ran against someone like a Rubio, what's going to happen there? We likely would not have had an arrogant Clinton either, which would have prevented her from thinking that wins in Arizona, Georgia, or Texas were even possible.

 

[IAmAnAgnostic]

She would have beat all three but probably not by a crazy amount.

I'm of that mind, yeah. It's certainly not like Trump did poorly among Republicans, so if Clinton ran against someone like a Rubio, what's going to happen there? We likely would not have had an arrogant Clinton either, which would have prevented her from thinking that wins in Arizona, Georgia, or Texas were even possible.

Huh. So Trump was the strongest Republican candidate? Funny how basically everyone thought he'd be the weakest.

 

[Pixieking]

Huh. So Trump was the strongest Republican candidate? Funny how basically everyone thought he'd be the weakest.

Another reason we either shouldn't worry about the next election, or worry a lot - Trump was the weakest candidate based on policy. Either that says policy will never matter again, or it says that his fascist talk coupled with the media focusing on emails and thinking Trump was entertaining is a once in a century occurrence.

Edit: Obama’s Policies and Broader Vision Face Reckoning With History

But bold campaign rhetoric does not always translate into such clear-cut action. For instance, Mr. Eisenhower denounced Harry S. Truman’s foreign policy, only to largely adopt it after taking over. Along similar lines, Richard M. Nixon did not scrap Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society, and Mr. Obama ultimately preserved much of Mr. Bush’s counterterrorism program.

Mr. Obama’s team hopes Mr. Trump finds it harder to shift course than he expected. Taking health care away from millions of Americans might prove problematic, Mr. Obama’s advisers said. In recent days, Mr. Trump has said he will keep elements of the program and find a way to ensure that Americans do not lose coverage.

Moreover, although Mr. Obama said that all of his progress would go “out the window,” advisers now argue the opposite: that many accomplishments cannot be overturned. He will be remembered, they said, for pulling the country out of the Great Recession, saving the auto industry, bringing home most troops fighting overseas, killing Osama bin Laden, enacting higher fuel efficiency standards and restoring relations with Cuba.

Mr. Obama accepts only so much responsibility for that, faulting Republican obstructionism. He points to his early days in office, when he was heading to Capitol Hill to discuss the economic crisis only to hear that Representative John A. Boehner, the top House Republican, had already rejected the new president’s stimulus package out of hand.

“When I think about the polarization that occurred in 2009 and 2010, I’ve gone back and I’ve looked at my proposals and my speeches and the steps we took to reach out to Congress,” he told the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin in a pre-election conversation published by Vanity Fair. “And the notion that we weren’t engaging Congress or that we were overly partisan or we didn’t schmooze enough, or we didn’t reach out enough to Republicans — that whole narrative just isn’t true.”

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'm of that mind, yeah. It's certainly not like Trump did poorly among Republicans, so if Clinton ran against someone like a Rubio, what's going to happen there? We likely would not have had an arrogant Clinton either, which would have prevented her from thinking that wins in Arizona, Georgia, or Texas were even possible.

Texas is probably a moonshot still, although it's worth noting it was about as close as Iowa and Ohio.

But Arizona and Georgia, I think are states that should still be targeted to flip.
Arizona has the fourth largest Latino population, as % share of the electorate. It will likely grow, as the 30% of the population that are Latino grows and ages.

We're in counterfactual fantasy here I know but, if she had taken Georgia, Arizona and NC - all of which were closer than Ohio and Iowa - she could have lost everything she did and still come out ahead. It's why I'm very wary of any idea of narrow losses in PA, WI and a possible narrow loss or win in MI should see the Democratic Party cease to make things like immigration reform a priority.

 

[Pixieking]

Portland police urge Trump protesters to ‘stay home’ after shooting

Mayor Charlie Hales (D) said Portland has experienced “great unrest” since Tuesday night. While he shared the frustration over the election of Trump, he said that changing the outcome “doesn’t involve signs anymore.” Hales encouraged residents who oppose Trump to get involved with organizations that will work to thwart controversial promises that the Republican had made on the campaign trail. Among other things, Trump has called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States and the deportation of immigrants who are here illegally.

“It is not the work of four days. That is the work of four years,” Hales said. “Going to the streets for another night is not going to keep Donald Trump from taking office

 

[Principate]

I'm of that mind, yeah. It's certainly not like Trump did poorly among Republicans, so if Clinton ran against someone like a Rubio, what's going to happen there? We likely would not have had an arrogant Clinton either, which would have prevented her from thinking that wins in Arizona, Georgia, or Texas were even possible.

I honestly think would have lost worse than she did against Trump keep in mind how poor her messaging was and how much of her election day support was more a vote against Trump than for her. Republican support would have like been the same but her support would have almost certainly been down. The only question would have been whether the blue wall held if now.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Texas is probably a moonshot still, although it's worth noting it was about as close as Iowa and Ohio.

But Arizona and Georgia, I think are states that should still be targeted to flip.
Arizona has the fourth largest Latino population, as % share of the electorate. It will likely grow, as the 30% of the population that are Latino grows and ages.

We're in counterfactual fantasy here I know but, if she had taken Georgia, Arizona and NC - all of which were closer than Ohio and Iowa - she could have lost everything she did and still come out ahead. It's why I'm very wary of any idea of narrow losses in PA, WI and a possible narrow loss or win in MI should see the Democratic Party cease to make things like immigration reform a priority.

Oh, I do believe that Arizona and Georgia are feasible for the future, I just think that we need to be careful that we don't lose them again. I also agree that we shouldn't make huge non-progressive changes to the DNC plan over these three states that were almost a fluke that we lost them.

 

[newshinycd]

Texas is probably a moonshot still, although it's worth noting it was about as close as Iowa and Ohio.

But Arizona and Georgia, I think are states that should still be targeted to flip.
Arizona has the fourth largest Latino population, as % share of the electorate. It will likely grow, as the 30% of the population that are Latino grows and ages.

We're in counterfactual fantasy here I know but, if she had taken Georgia, Arizona and NC - all of which were closer than Ohio and Iowa - she could have lost everything she did and still come out ahead. It's why I'm very wary of any idea of narrow losses in PA, WI and a possible narrow loss or win in MI should see the Democratic Party cease to make things like immigration reform a priority.

I've been thinking about Georgia since the election, and I think it can flip in 2020. Three counties flipped this year. Gwinnett, Cobb, and Henry. These are counties that voted heavily for McCain and Romney. Especially Gwinnett and Cobb. The Republican candidate won these two counties by a 10% margin in 2008 and 2012.

 

[Frank the Great]

We're in counterfactual fantasy here I know but, if she had taken Georgia, Arizona and NC - all of which were closer than Ohio and Iowa - she could have lost everything she did and still come out ahead. It's why I'm very wary of any idea of narrow losses in PA, WI and a possible narrow loss or win in MI should see the Democratic Party cease to make things like immigration reform a priority.

Don't forget Florida. The demographics will keep moving in our direction there. FL/NC would have won it for her alone.

The electoral map and shifting demographics still favor Democrats. That didn't magically change overnight due to one shitty campaign.

 

[Frank the Great]

Do we have any potential great candidates coming up for the NJ and VA gubernatorial elections? NJ seems likely because of how terrible Christie is but I'm unfamiliar with the state politics of either. None of our senators seem interested in running there, though. Maybe Kaine will now that he's not running for VP?

Phil Murphy is going to be the next NJ governor. All the other major Dem players have already dropped out and some have endorsed him. Usually Dem politics in NJ is a battle between the north Jersey progressive Dems and south Jersey Dems (more conservative). The north Jersey Dems usually canabalize themselves, but this year they all shockingly lined up for Murphy. And the only big South Jersey player, Steve Sweeney, shockingly dropped out because he's afraid of Murphy.

Pros: progressive platform, new ideas such as a NJ infrastructure bank, ambassador to Germany under Obama, somewhat of an outsider to NJ politics, created and chaired a progressive non profit think tank, worked for DNC under the Dean machine and the fifty state strategy

Cons: worked at Goldman Sachs, chaired a benefits reform commission in the mid 2000s that recommended raising retirement age and selling off assets, has a terrible hairline, is already 56

I'm fully on board the Murphy train, having already donated money to him. I don't think any of his cons are real negatives, but others might. I have never heard him speak, however, and the fact that he is getting into politics so late in life leads me to believe that he may not be the charismatic heart-throb we need in 2020. Maybe a future vice president.

Should be great for NJ though. It will be nice for the northern Dems to have power again. The unholy Christie/Sweeney alliance did a lot of damage.

I'm curious as to Kev's views on the upcoming race, as well as the rest of NJ-GAF.

 

[Y2Kev]

I was for Steve fulop. I love his story. Banking, military, revitalizing an urban center, young, etc. obviously banking is dirty now so there go my plans for world domination but apparently fulop is a little...not spotless.

I have no idea who Murphy is but he's ugly so that's a big strike against him IMO. Also how is he not corzine 2?

Bernie's legacy better not be to tar anyone who worked in finance. Regardless of the sector's excesses (of which there are many) core banking and lending is important to the world and I doubt the public is able to discern that now.

Edit: tulsi gabbard is not the answer and if she is the choice of the left because she backed Bernie I would be very disappointed.

 

[Diablos]

I'm not from NJ but any Democrat is better than Christie, aka Trump's water boy

Speaking of Govs I'm quite concerned about Wolf here in PA. If the red tide doesn't let up we could turn into Kansas after 2018 depending on who runs on the GOP side. I like Wolf but he's about as exciting as a brick wall and hasn't been able to get much done.

 

[lyrick]

Kelly Anne Conway draped in gold on MTP, trying to push spin still towards Chuck Todd. Todd pushing back... A little bit.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I was for Steve fulop. I love his story. Banking, military, revitalizing an urban center, young, etc. obviously banking is dirty now so there go my plans for world domination but apparently fulop is a little...not spotless.

I have no idea who Murphy is but he's ugly so that's a big strike against him IMO. Also how is he not corzine 2?

Bernie's legacy better not be to tar anyone who worked in finance. Regardless of the sector's excesses (of which there are many) core banking and lending is important to the world and I doubt the public is able to discern that now.

Edit: tulsi gabbard is not the answer and if she is the choice of the left because she backed Bernie I would be very disappointed.

Yeah there is this really obnoxious tendency towards "If they supported Bernie they must be good!" Like how the fuck do you complain about Hillary flip-flopping on LGBT/minority issues and then put up Tulsi fucking Gabbard as the poster child for your revolution? Who's next, Colin Peterson?

Like I understand Keith Ellison because he's been well connected and at the front of progressive politics for years. Tulsi is a blatant opportunist and it's hilarious and sad to see so many Bernie supporters fall for it. They also hate Howard Dean now. Durr Hillary bad Bernie good.

 

[thehypocrite]

Who should democrats run in 2020?

Sanders?
Clinton?
Howard Dean?
Tim Kaine?
Elizabeth Warren?
Someone else?

Let the candidates decide and prove themselves.

 

[dramatis]

I was aware of Sanders having what was otherwise unprecedented input in the party platform. And I appreciated it, though I wouldn't admit it at the time. It just really didn't feel that tangible, especially when Tim Kaine was her VP pick. Sanders supporters definitely take notes from the tea party about being noisy and demanding everything. But I think we really needed Sanders or Warren as VP. People were wary of Clinton and at the least wanted her right hand person to be one of our guys.

The problem with the position taken about the VP pick, at the time and even now, is the misconception about what the VP does.

The argument for Sanders or Warren as VP pick is a very optics driven one. "We didn't trust Hillary, so we wanted one of our guys as the right hand person" doesn't understand that the position of VP is only as powerful as the president decides that position and person can be. VP Harry Truman famously did not even know what the Manhattan Project existed until FDR died and Truman became president—and he was the guy who had to decide if they should use the bombs! If I asked you, and you not using Google, what role did Biden play as VP? Can you say with certainty that he was a significant influence on Obama's decisions? In the Clinton White House, Gore and Hillary supposedly had a frosty relationship because Gore had to fight Hillary on influence. Yet in the Bush Jr. White House, Dick Cheney had significant say.

In short, Hillary could have picked Sanders as VP but then iced him out of the White House and decisionmaking. He would be a 'right hand man' in name only. It would be a pick for the optics of campaigning. And who knows, maybe that's the kind of thing that should dictate VP picks in the modern era.

Moreover, had the Democrats been able to get a majority in the Senate again, Bernie Sanders could have become a committee chair. Specifically, it was rumored that he wanted Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

A congressional committee is a legislative sub-organization in the United States Congress that handles a specific duty (rather than the general duties of Congress). Committee membership enables members to develop specialized knowledge of the matters under their jurisdiction. As "little legislatures", the committees monitor ongoing governmental operations, identify issues suitable for legislative review, gather and evaluate information, and recommend courses of action to their parent body.

Why, if Bernie Sanders could have this, would he want to be VP under a woman that he purported rigged the system, is establishment, called unqualified, and didn't seem to like very much? When he could be guiding and directing legislation instead?

Who knows. Maybe he could have wanted VP. But the position itself is not that of "right hand man" unless the president makes it so.

If there's something that we could probably all learn a bit about, it's the functions of government and how the whole thing works in its small ways, so we don't walk around with misunderstandings about decisions that make no sense from one standpoint but could make a lot of sense from a different one.

 

[Boke1879]

Trump still attacking The NY Times I see.

 

[Pixieking]

Trump still attacking The NY Times I see.

Genuinely wondering how broken the US is going to get before something snaps. He ain't gonna pivot unexpectedly - "educated" people must have seen how he was going to be as corrupt as any other politician (and more than Hillary). He's so brazenly entertaining pay-for-play, lobbyists, friends and family in important positions, and couple that with not following though on "policy"...

Reminded of a storyline in NCIS: New Orleans, about American militia and "Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis" ("Thus always I bring death to tyrants"), and currently thinking it's not the militia that people should be afraid of rising up.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Trump still attacking The NY Times I see.

The NYT is going to smell blood and hunt for a story to take down the entire Trump Administration. They'll probably spend the next 4 years just looking into things they can bring him down with.

I think a lot of the media will be. He's a huge target and he directly antagonized them.

 

[Wilsongt]

I'm not sure how Tulsi Gabbard convinced people she's not islomphonic but apparently she has...

Bernie supporters are starting the rally behind her...

 

[lyrick]

Keith Ellison wearing a safety pin on his lapel on MTP.

 

[Pixieking]

Maggie Haberman ‏@maggieNYT 3m3 minutes ago

Ellison on "This Week" re infrastructure:Trump has chance to deliver on it. "And if he doesn’t, we’ll make sure the people know about it."

Yes! Goooooooooooooooooo for iiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Keith Ellison wearing a safety pin on his lapel on MTP.

Amazing.

DNC, you need to do the right thing.

 

[HariKari]

Keith Ellison wearing a safety pin on his lapel on MTP.

He gave a terrible answer when pressed about NAFTA and Clinton. I didn't see any original ideas. Said that he could be in congress and the DNC, which I also disagree with. Pretty disappointing.

 

[neurosisxeno]

We're in counterfactual fantasy here I know but, if she had taken Georgia, Arizona and NC - all of which were closer than Ohio and Iowa - she could have lost everything she did and still come out ahead. It's why I'm very wary of any idea of narrow losses in PA, WI and a possible narrow loss or win in MI should see the Democratic Party cease to make things like immigration reform a priority.

Immigration Reform isn't why she lost the Rust Belt though. Being painted as vehemently Pro-Trade is why she was. That's a region that was ravaged by NAFTA which her husband signed. You point out Bill wasn't on the ticket, but it's no secret Hillary was influential in the Clinton White House. We all laughed at Trump attacking Hillary for things Bill did, but he won key states by doing so.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Stooge 2020.

Yeah there is this really obnoxious tendency towards "If they supported Bernie they must be good!" Like how the fuck do you complain about Hillary flip-flopping on LGBT/minority issues and then put up Tulsi fucking Gabbard as the poster child for your revolution? Who's next, Colin Peterson?

Like I understand Keith Ellison because he's been well connected and at the front of progressive politics for years. Tulsi is a blatant opportunist and it's hilarious and sad to see so many Bernie supporters fall for it. They also hate Howard Dean now. Durr Hillary bad Bernie good.

I don't really see why both Dean and Ellison can't work together to get the DNC back in shape. Dean can make it a full time role and built Democracy for America.

Also, failing NYT on some protesters.

Many protest leaders ... either did not vote or chose a third-party candidate in the general election, said Ben Becker, an organizer with the Answer Coalition, an antiwar and antiracism activist group based in New York. Their anger, he said, had been exacerbated by the conciliatory tone shown to Mr. Trump by President Obama and Hillary Clinton after Mrs. Clinton’s defeat.

...

Immigration Reform isn't why she lost the Rust Belt though. Being painted as vehemently Pro-Trade is why she was. That's a region that was ravaged by NAFTA which her husband signed. You point out Bill wasn't on the ticket, but it's no secret Hillary was influential in the Clinton White House. We all laughed at Trump attacking Hillary for things Bill did, but he won key states by doing so.

Immigration reform and US organised labour have had a complex history. And even Trump's NAFTA refrain was specifically (racially) framed by Trump as jobs to Mexico. So, I still think there's an inherent conflict here between paths to citizenship and the wwc, versus the appeal of Trump's build the wall / deportation force rhetoric to keep out all those illegals that took our jobs.

 

[Diablos]

The NYT is going to smell blood and hunt for a story to take down the entire Trump Administration. They'll probably spend the next 4 years just looking into things they can bring him down with.

I think a lot of the media will be. He's a huge target and he directly antagonized them.

lol the media was sucking Trump off this entire election. Let Fox News buy out CNN at this point. I don't expect them to hit him as hard as we anticipate. He's got at least one more year of getting deepthroated by CNN.

 

[RustyNails]

We need someone to rally around to after being blasted by the worst forces in politics imaginable. I think we're looking for the next Obama. I'm sure he's out there somewhere (or she).

Also now that we fucking finally might have a D governor in NC, will the shitty voting restrictions be lifted for 2020? Can we have 4 Souls2Polls instead of 2?

 

[RustyNails]

lol the media was sucking Trump off this entire election. Let Fox News buy out CNN at this point. I don't expect them to hit him as hard as we anticipate. He's got at least one more year of getting deepthroated by CNN.

Print media vs TV infotainment Deadheat media are completely different in their coverage of election. Even WSJ which heavily leans right was really tough on Trump.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Too bad nobody reads anything but Twitter and Facebook walls now.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

We need someone to rally around to after being blasted by the worst forces in politics imaginable. I think we're looking for the next Obama. I'm sure he's out there somewhere (or she).

Also now that we fucking finally might have a D governor in NC, will the shitty voting restrictions be lifted for 2020? Can we have 4 Souls2Polls instead of 2?

What can the governor do without the legislature?

 

[Doc Holliday]

Too bad nobody reads anything but Twitter and Facebook walls now.

Shinra-bansho,

Your avatar kills me, simple and to the point.

Even Starbucks is playing depressing ass music

 

[Roland_Gunner]

What can the governor do without the legislature?

The governor appoints the members of the state board of elections. They can't bring back things like the 2nd souls to the polls day but they can add voting locations and hours. The Dems also now have a majority in the NC supreme court, which oversees redistricting cases.

 

[thehypocrite]

I guess we have talked about this somewhat.

Milanovic: Global inequality is such an abstract concept, simply because there is no global government. Telling people in rich countries who have had no increase in real incomes, stagnant median wages and so on, that on the other hand global inequality is going down because people who are much poorer than them are getting richer—it’s something that maybe they would like in an abstract sense, because everyone is happy there are fewer poor Chinese, but you may not be as happy if these Chinese are taking your job. So I don’t think a politically reasonable defense of the current situation is to tell the people who feel they’ve been losing economically within their own country that, on the other hand, they are contributing to some greater good externally.

http://gawker.com/global-inequality-explained-by-branko-milanovic-1780110436

The message on trade has to be different, it has to be more direct and more connected to the benefits that trade can provide this voters. I remember an interview in regards to Canada, on how they have a better message on how to communicate the benefits of trade to rural voters that we could learn from.

More

Gawker: What are some of the social dangers that accompany high inequality within societies?

Milanovic: On the one hand, the issue of populism, which we have seen first in Europe but also now in the US. Essentially, people who have been at the receiving end of globalization or technological change, in the sense that they were promised when globalization started that it would increase their incomes—and it’s true for some of them incomes went up—but if you take three large countries like the US, Germany, and Japan, the lower half of the income distribution has really seen very little growth over the past 25 years. So the reaction now is to lash out against two perceived problems. One problem is substitution of their labor by cheaper imports from the rest of the world. And another one is migration, which is somewhat similar, because again it is people from the outside who are actually saying they’re willing to do the job for less money. So I think this is the reaction which is populist—the reaction which says “I would like to have less of globalization if it involves a really great threat to my job.”

The danger of that in my opinion is that globalization has many good features, and that throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not exactly the best policy. The world output would certainly go down if we were to start putting tariff rates and competitive devaluation and so on.

The second danger is the danger of plutocracy. There, people in the rich countries who have done very well, who are at the top of the income pyramid, try to steamroll over the opposition of the middle without changing anything in social programs, or any redistribution. And they take their votes for a given. They have rich people that bankroll them. And the globalization would continue, but it would continue with permanent dissatisfaction among large segments of the people.

Gawker: What do you think the wisest move is, for those who are not the highest earners, to mitigate inequality?

Milanovic: If the solution were simple, we would have done it. But if you agree with that sort of description of the perils of populism and plutocracy, then the answer is really greater attention from the winners of globalization towards those who are dissatisfied. Because the well understood self-interest at the top would tell them that you cannot just continue with policies forever if you have a significant pool of people who are unhappy. So the self-interest would say, “let’s see what we can do to make their position better.” It could be higher tax on the top incomes, closing down the loopholes they have at the top that lobbyists have been very successful at making, encouraging small shareholders—broadening the ownership of capital, which is very heavily concentrated...

This is not a short term solution, because whatever change you make now is going to take five or ten years to make an impact. But you cannot just ignore it forever.

Gawker: If changes aren’t made by people at the top, is some sort of meltdown inevitable?

Milanovic: I don’t think meltdown, but what would happen is, if Trump does not become President—and I don’t think Trump will be able to do much because his recommendations or policies are pretty incoherent—but whatever happens, you would have in the future, for the next election and the election after that, a significantly large constituency of people. And these people we now know that they exist, and they vote somewhat as a block. So there would be another political entrepreneur who would use them. In that sense I think that the situation is not just whatever happens with this election cycle. If that problem is not attended, it would reappear in four years. And in Europe, it is appearing very strongly, and what then happens is even if parties associated with right wing populism don’t win, they push other parties, the centrist parties, towards their position. So they do have an influence even if they’re not in power.

Did I just Doxx Crab?

 

[Revolver]

Did anyone see Van Jones and Mary Matalin on This Week? Things got heated and personal. Matalin went after him for pointing out the racist element in Trump's campaign and wanted him to apologize. Apparently calling out racists is worse than being racist.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The governor appoints the members of the state board of elections. They can't bring back things like the 2nd souls to the polls day but they can add voting locations and hours. The Dems also now have a majority in the NC supreme court, which oversees redistricting cases.

Interesting. I'm not familiar enough with NC's electoral setup to comment, but that sounds promising.

 

[GutsOfThor]

Did anyone see Van Jones and Mary Matalin on This Week? Things got heated and personal. Matalin went after him for pointing out the racist element in Trump's campaign and wanted him to apologize. Apparently calling out racists is worse than being racist.

Please say Van didn't back down.

 

[HariKari]

The message on trade has to be different, it has to be more direct and more connected to the benefits that trade can provide this voters. I remember an interview in regards to Canada, on how they have a better message on how to communicate the benefits of trade to rural voters that we could learn from.

Free trade is fine if you have strong rights for employees like most every other developed country. Minimum wage hikes and things like mandatory sick leave are passing at the state level. People are ready for that sort of reform, on both sides of the aisle. They don't want to see more junk like TPP.

 

[Revolver]

Please say Van didn't back down.

He didn't. She called him a racial polemicist and suggested he had no right to call out racism because he's privileged. All she was missing was her white hood. Her eye rolling and condensation was disgraceful. I imagine there will be clips of the exchange making the rounds shortly.

 

[GutsOfThor]

He didn't. She called him a racial polemicist and suggested he had no right to call out racism because he's privileged. All she was missing was her white hood. Her eye rolling and condensation was disgraceful. I imagine there will be clips of the exchange making the rounds shortly.

What was her argument on how he is privileged?

 

[Poodlestrike]

Free trade is fine if you have strong rights for employees like most every other developed country. Minimum wage hikes and things like mandatory sick leave are passing at the state level. People are ready for that sort of reform, on both sides of the aisle. They don't want to see more junk like TPP.

Gonna need a source on the bolded. Pretty sure the Republican side of the aisle isn't okay with that sort of thing unless it includes a melanin test as part of the application.

 

[VendettaRed07]

I can't deal with this guys.

I have barely slept or ate for almost a week

 

[neurosisxeno]

Free trade is fine if you have strong rights for employees like most every other developed country. Minimum wage hikes and things like mandatory sick leave are passing at the state level. People are ready for that sort of reform, on both sides of the aisle. They don't want to see more junk like TPP.

Republicans vehemently oppose minimum wage increases. Their argument is it's going to put small businesses out of business (it doesn't) and that it's contributing to the problem of wage stagnation (it's not). The TPP is not junk if you actually read the bill and don't just assume it's NAFTA MEETS SOPA!!! When you read actual breakdowns of what's in it as well as the intent of the deal it's actually a great damn deal.

 

[Tendo]

I can't deal with this guys.

I have barely slept or ate for almost a week

Make a plan to get involved locally. My wife and I are. Let this feeling fuel you. We have a tough governor's race that we need to make sure we win in 2018.

 

[Pixieking]

I can't deal with this guys.

I have barely slept or ate for almost a week

I'm a skinny fuck at the best of times, but I'm now down to the lowest weight I've been in my life. The last few days got rid of my belly, and now skin-and-bones around my chest.

Also:

Josh Rogin Verified account
‏@joshrogin

Giuliani to @jaketapper on ethics laws on conflicts of interests: "Those laws don't apply to the president." I feel so much better.

No, seriously guys, Trump is gonna be fucked very shortly, if he continues like this.