Support NeoGAF

[Black Republican]

True, don't fuck it up Chicago.

Chicago will single handily increase the murder rate in Feb alone :/

 

[smokeymicpot]

Chicago will single handily increase the murder rate in Feb alone :/

Well its the only city Trump cares about so fuck.

Woman dies because she can't get to the U.S. for medical treatment because of Trump's Muslim ban

It's these stories that can shift public opinion quickly. Democrats need to reach out to families hurt by Trump's policies & push them to the forefront

edit: already a thread in OT, good. more people that know the better

They won't care until it effects one of their family members.

 

[TestOfTide]

Well its the only city Trump cares about so fuck.



They won't care until it effects one of their family members.

All it needs to be is someone they know and don't hate for it to affect their opinion.

The difficulty of course is that too many Trump voters live in VERY isolated communities.

But everywhere that isn't straight up rural is going to have people who are negatively affected by this.

Dems could potentially turn the suburban Vote into a strong antiTrump voting block.

 

[chadskin]

Starting to think Trump legitimately has early dementia or something.

https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/status/826521935987298304

That's really rather strange behavior.

 

[Teggy]

No. He should go run for an actual office, not an organizational role.

He can do that too, he's young.

Geez, I didn't even know his cred - LT in Afghanistan and Harvard and Oxford educated?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Starting to think Trump legitimately has early dementia or something.

https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/status/826521935987298304

Reminds me of the earlier years of my Grandpa

 

[whyamihere]

Right.

@liamstack
Senior official told Breitbart Trump wants to keep the population of US Muslims from getting too high like in France http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/30/trump-changes-immigration-favor-american-values/

 

[sphagnum]

Trump's insanity has turned my conservative sister into a fairly liberal Democrat pretty quickly. She even told her husband that he didn't understand because he has white male privilege.

I'm so proud.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Trump's insanity has turned my conservative sister into a a fairly liberal Democrat pretty quickly. She even told her husband that he didn't understand because he has white male privilege.

I'm so proud.

Trump is crazy that any sane conservative should back away from

 

[whyamihere]

@teddyschleifer
Ted Cruz is debating Bernie Sanders next Tuesday on CNN on Obamacare.

why.

 

[StormBrute]

why.

This may in fact be the most pointless debate in all of history

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

why.

Uhhh ok

 

[smokeymicpot]

All it needs to be is someone they know and don't hate for it to affect their opinion.

The difficulty of course is that too many Trump voters live in VERY isolated communities.

But everywhere that isn't straight up rural is going to have people who are negatively affected by this.

Dems could potentially turn the suburban Vote into a strong antiTrump voting block.

Sadly not true. Staten Island is not like that. I live here and they we will always vote red sadly.

 

[Teggy]

I hope Bernie studies up because Cruz is the king of misleading info.

 

[metalslimer]

why.

Speaking of did anyone watch tonight's pointless townhall with Pelosi?

Also Bernie is just going to end up saying medicare for all is the way to go. Bernie like to speak from platitudes whereas Cruz will bs his way through something with data that seems legit

 

[Cesare Borgia]

why.

Getting his message and face out there as much as possible. It's amazing how many people went through the 2016 primary process without knowing much of anything about Sanders. That's why he repeats his stump speech all the time. We're not the target audience.

Sounds like a dumb idea, and he's a terrible debater whereas Cruz is a very good debater so yea...

 

[royalan]

why.

Getting his message and face out there as much as possible. It's amazing how many people went through the 2016 primary process without knowing much of anything about Sanders. That's why he repeats his stump speech all the time. We're not the target audience.

Sounds like a dumb idea, and he's a terrible debater whereas Cruz is a very good debater so yea...

And therein lies the rub. Ted Cruz is a great bullshit artist. Bernie can't abandon his stump to save his life.

I mean, I'll be tuning in, but I'm just shaking my head that the person who'll be defending the ACA against the GOP in a televised debate is a man who spent much of the primaries attacking the ACA, for vaguely similar reasons (although completely different motives). There are better people out there to champion the ACA.

 

[Hindl]

why.

That's so dumb

 

[Frank the Great]

If we aren't going to filibuster this pick .. then why are we scarred of it going away?

What's the point of having it if we don't use it

I'd rather it be gone entirely if only republicans use it and democrats don't

Exactly.

Tired of always being on the side of the suckers.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

"The ruling class"? That's just as much an empty buzzword as "The Establishment" or "The Bourgeoisie". If you're lost without a nebulous boogeyman to fight when there's an actual demon at the gates, that is insanity to me.

No one talks about Unions because almost no one's in them anymore. Trying to wind back the clock is pointless. And if you try to point out Canada- their private sector is almost as low as ours. The difference in unionization is almost completely due to the public sector.

Do you want me to say "the 1%" instead? That's been used by Democrats since at least 2000, by well-known populist Al Gore. Who do you think actually wants right-to-work? Do you think the Koch Brothers spend absurd amounts of money on winning state legislatures because they actually think it will help people? Do you think it's just how it works that the people who wrecked the global economy got their industries bailed out while people lost their homes and retirement money? Or maybe you think that donors don't really matter, in which case I'll use the words of one Barack Obama.

Increasingly I found myself spending time with people of means — law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists. As a rule, they were smart, interesting people, knowledgeable about public policy, liberal in their politics, expecting nothing more than a hearing of their opinions in exchange for their checks. But they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class: the top 1 percent or so of the income scale that can afford to write a $2,000 check to a political candidate. They believed in the free market and an educational meritocracy; they found it hard to imagine that there might be any social ill that could not be cured by a high SAT score. They had no patience with protectionism, found unions troublesome, and were not particularly sympathetic to those whose lives were upended by the movements of global capital. Most were adamantly prochoice and antigun and were vaguely suspicious of deep religious sentiment.

And although my own worldview and theirs corresponded in many ways — I had gone to the same schools, after all, had read the same books, and worried about my kids in many of the same ways — I found myself avoiding certain topics during conversations with them, papering over possible differences, anticipating their expectations. On core issues I was candid; I had no problem telling well-heeled supporters that the tax cuts they'd received from George Bush should be reversed. Whenever I could, I would try to share with them some of the perspectives I was hearing from other portions of the electorate: the legitimate role of faith in politics, say, or the deep cultural meaning of guns in rural parts of the state.

Still, I know that as a consequence of my fund-raising I became more like the wealthy donors I met, in the very particular sense that I spent more and more of my time above the fray, outside the world of immediate hunger, disappointment, fear, irrationality, and frequent hardship of the other 99 percent of the population — that is, the people that I'd entered public life to serve. And in one fashion or another, I suspect this is true for every senator: The longer you are a senator, the narrower the scope of your interactions. You may fight it, with town hall meetings and listening tours and stops by the old neighborhood. But your schedule dictates that you move in a different orbit from most of the people you represent.

And perhaps as the next race approaches, a voice within tells you that you don't want to have to go through all the misery of raising all that money in small increments all over again. You realize that you no longer have the cachet you did as the upstart, the fresh face; you haven't changed Washington, and you've made a lot of people unhappy with difficult votes. The path of least resistance — of fund-raisers organized by the special interests, the corporate PACs, and the top lobbying shops — starts to look awfully tempting, and if the opinions of these insiders don't quite jibe with those you once held, you learn to rationalize the changes as a matter of realism, of compromise, of learning the ropes. The problems of ordinary people, the voices of the Rust Belt town or the dwindling heartland, become a distant echo rather than a palpable reality, abstractions to be managed rather than battles to be fought.

No one is in unions because we broke them all up over the past few decades. Why don't we have better public sector unions? Why don't we have a massive increase in public sector employment to give the kinds of good jobs people want? Where's Clinton's proposal for a mass hiring of better paid teachers to work at our low-income schools, because she believes that every child should get a great education regardless of how wealthy their parents are.

And Obama's team was looking an acting on deregulation in areas where it's protectionist. There's no reason that wouldn't have continued under a Clinton admin.

What do you think TPP and TTIP were? Opening up markets to our massively subsidized agriculture and pharmaceutical industries so that foreign competitors without the subsidies can't compete is a different kind of protectionism. We aren't opening up our markets to cheap pharmaceuticals from Canada, after all.

She talked about this stuff a lot.

See: This video about a speech to the NEA for starters...

https://www.c-span.org/video/?41214...ses-national-education-association-conference

Your criticism here about her not talking about this stuff is unfair.

This is actually pretty good but this is one speech to NEA. Why wasn't she blasting this message in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, and Florida? Why wasn't it an important part of her stump speech?

This is just whataboutism, and for what it's worth, most of these interstate protection rackets should be broken up. We are not a union of 50 separate countries that are pitted against each other.

Is it really though? Those states engage in those behaviors because we incentivize them to do so, especially when we liberalize industries important to them. Should our response to Michigan be "welp, you're fucked so uh enjoy having everyone who can leave your state for greener pastures go while the poor among you just kind of have to get fucked"? Should we make crushing unions and low minimum wages necessary policy for states without other competitive measures? Because that's what we do when we don't do anything to really manage private control of capital. As long as a large company can threaten to take their capital out of the area, governments will be limited in what they can do to make things better.

Do you want me to link to several speeches, rallies, and websites or can I assume you just mean "I never got the feeling that Hillary cared about white working class people." Because that's what this reads like in the face of her policy proposals.

I mean, you can, because the point is that her messaging never came through. Bernie had big proposals for issues like criminal justice reform but they weren't properly incorporated into his messaging and it paid with voters he wanted to get.

And I never mentioned the "white working class" because her black vote share was a real issue too. She got a smaller vote share from black voters than Gore and about the same as Kerry. These are real issues for the nonwhite working class, who will be hit just as hard by automation as white workers. When I was in Chicago almost every driver I had when using a public bus (or the one time my friends called an Uber). Do they not have a place in the future of America because they'll soon be out of work? We are in a pit of inequality fueled by the death of postwar liberal consensus and trying to technocratically tinker at the edges will not fix the fundamental problems with society, and those problems will affect workers of all skin colors.

No one talks about it because it's farther down the road than the massive automation of low-skilled work. Kind of how no one would ever ask a late-stage cancer patient in their 30s "What retirement plan are you on?"

If we're talking automated service work, then we're decades beyond the point where like a third of the US workforce is automated. If we haven't cooked up a plan for displaced workers, then we'll have a lot more problems to deal with after years of so much unemployment.

Also, the messaging of "I know working class jobs are going to get automated in the next decade, but what about the doctors and lawyers?" could use some work-shopping.

I imagine it's much sooner than you think, but my point is that for all people are talking about how automation will end industries, they seem largely unconcerned with most of the jobs they're advocating people get to replace the lost jobs so that then when those are automated ten years later they'll do what, exactly?

And I listed doctors and lawyers, but this potentially applies to teachers, accountants, writers, other health care professionals. It's not only low-skill manufacturing or service work that will be going away here.

Spoiler

what if the workers just owned the factory so they could get the benefits of automation instead of losing their jobs

 

[shinra-bansho]

If we aren't going to filibuster this pick .. then why are we scarred of it going away?

What's the point of having it if we don't use it

I'd rather it be gone entirely if only republicans use it and democrats don't

Because in theory, the filibuster has moderated the pick. The potential for Pryor faded when it became clear he would be hard to get confirmed.

I'm ambivalent on if they should. But if they do it should be because of a strategy and not just feelings.

Cf the inability to do anything about the Cabinet having a bunch of incompetent wackadoos up for vote soon. In theory the filibuster would have led to more Haleys and Mattises and less Sessions and DeVoses.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Ted Cruz managed to get owned in a debate by Donald Trump, who is the worst debater I've ever seen.

Cruz is terrible at this stuff.

Sanders is a really bad speaker too though.

This is going to be unwatchable.

(Please don't watch it).

 

[balladofwindfishes]

why.

It's like bizarro 2016 general election

 

[Tarydax]

I hope Bernie studies up because Cruz is the king of misleading info.

Bernie couldn't even be bothered to read up on the drought when he visited California during the Dem primary. He's going to get his ass kicked.

I don't know why he's even doing this considering it'll only make him look worse unless, by some miracle, he actually puts some effort into it and doesn't fall back on his usual stump speech.

 

[Good Job Bob]

why.

Because politics is all about memes now, and Bernie Sanders debating Ted Cruz is hella fuckin' meme.

 

[royalan]

Ted Cruz managed to get owned in a debate by Donald Trump, who is the worst debater I've ever seen.

Cruz is terrible at this stuff.

Sanders is a really bad speaker too though.

This is going to be unwatchable.

(Please don't watch it).

To be fair, everyone but Hillary Clinton got bodied by Trump in the debates.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I want someone to ask Bernie about Afghanistan just to see if Bernie knows anything about Afghanistan now.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Trump's insanity has turned my conservative sister into a fairly liberal Democrat pretty quickly. She even told her husband that he didn't understand because he has white male privilege.

I'm so proud.

Man I would be so happy if this happened with my brother and his wife. Bush helped my dad figure out Republicans were never on his side.

why.

Helps break the bubble hopefully? He probably views it the same way he did that town hall in Wisconsin.

It probably won't matter but he gets points for trying.

 

[sphagnum]

Spoiler

what if the workers just owned the factory so they could get the benefits of automation instead of losing their jobs

Sneaky

 

[metalslimer]

I mean Bernie has been railing against Obamacare for years so he's not a great character witness for it.

On something good like climate change, that would be a better debate for him.

 

[tedrotheredro]

Ted Cruz managed to get owned in a debate by Donald Trump, who is the worst debater I've ever seen.

Cruz is terrible at this stuff.

Sanders is a really bad speaker too though.

This is going to be unwatchable.

(Please don't watch it).

I think Cruz is a decent debater when speaking on the issues, but Trump just bullied him and made him look like a dweeb.

Bernie won't be a good defender of Obamacare. He'll prob talk single payer or some other pipe dream.

It's gonna be a boring disaster. I'll look forward to the Trump tweets about it.

 

[JP_]

why.

Because unlike on GAF, people like Bernie and think he debates fine and this is a way to keep people engaged because debates like this attract more viewers.

 

[royalan]

I mean Bernie has been railing against Obamacare for years so he's not a great character witness for it.

Exactly. I don't even think he'll have credibility with his own base doing this.

The worse thing that could happen is that Ted Cruz baits him into openly criticizing the ACA. I hate Cruz, but he's a good enough debater to do just that.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I remember when Ted Cruz argued that Trump's tariffs were bad and then tried to argue for his own tariffs which weren't actually tariffs and it was the most complicated answer given in a presidential debate maybe ever and it was full of falsehoods.

It was such a fucking weird idea for an answer.

 

[Teggy]

NYT had an oped ready to go about why liberals should support Gorsuch? WTF.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Bernie lead like a huge national set of rallies to save Obamacare like three weeks ago, you guys have short memories.

 

[metalslimer]

Bernie lead like a huge national set of rallies to save Obamacare like three weeks ago, you guys have short memories.

No I know Bernie obviously wants to save obamacare from whatever Trump has panned but he's already put in a bad position from past comments. I don't want it to seem like it's a Bernie hate thing but I would rather he debate some other issue. Cruz is going to pepper him with his past comments and how even he said he wanted something else last year

 

[royalan]

Bernie lead like a huge national set of rallies to save Obamacare like three weeks ago, you guys have short memories.

Bernie, or his PAC in conjunction with dozens of other liberal groups?

 

[Jooney]

Because in theory, the filibuster has moderated the pick. The potential for Pryor faded when it became clear he would be hard to get confirmed.

I'm ambivalent on if they should. But if they do it should be because of a strategy and not just feelings.

Cf the inability to do anything about the Cabinet having a bunch of incompetent wackadoos up for vote soon. In theory the filibuster would have led to more Haleys and Mattises and less Sessions and DeVoses.

Does Pryor get two votes or something? Unless Gorsuch provides a significantly greater % that he is a moderate / swing on key issues the point is moot. NYT is saying Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia so whatever moderation power the filibuster supposedly holds it has not taken effect for the nomination to fill this seat.

 

[Diablos]

NYT had an oped ready to go about why liberals should support Gorsuch? WTF.

Probably because Democrats have to eat this loss. Trade Scalia for Scalia, fine. It is the next one that makes this an issue, i.e Ginsburg, Breyer, or Kennedy

 

[metalslimer]

Probably because Democrats have to eat this loss. Trade Scalia for Scalia, fine. It is the next one that makes this an issue, i.e Ginsburg, Breyer, or Kennedy

They don't have to do anything. If they don't at least attempt a fillibuster, the base will eat them alive.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Bernie, or his PAC in conjunction with dozens of other liberal groups?

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/15/50996...n-dozens-of-cities-to-oppose-obamacare-repeal

Sanders used his vast email list from the campaign to help organize support for Sunday's rallies in support of Obamacare, which stretched from an event led by House minority leader Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco to one featuring Sen. Elizabeth Warren in Boston.

And sure he didn't do it singlehandedly, it doesn't mean he wasn't already invested in the effort to save it.

 

[sc0la]

We would have been slaughtered in '18/'20.

A pyrrhic Clinton victory was a definite possibility but potentially still worth it.

A pyrrhic Bernie victory would have been a guarantee.

It would absolutely have been worth it because it would have cemented Obama care and flipped Scalias seat. Even if a successor to a single term Hillary presidency got to nominate two (or three) the balance of the court would have had some promise for the future.

 

[sphagnum]

Bernie was right to criticize Obamacare, doesn't mean he can't defend it from Trumpcare.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Is it really though? Those states engage in those behaviors because we incentivize them to do so, especially when we liberalize industries important to them. Should our response to Michigan be "welp, you're fucked so uh enjoy having everyone who can leave your state for greener pastures go while the poor among you just kind of have to get fucked"? Should we make crushing unions and low minimum wages necessary policy for states without other competitive measures? Because that's what we do when we don't do anything to really manage private control of capital. As long as a large company can threaten to take their capital out of the area, governments will be limited in what they can do to make things better.

I never said they don't engage in that protectionism, I'm saying that doing so is bad and should be stopped. Gains should just be spread around anyway from the much more successful regions. I am constantly harping on things like UBI for these shitty regions with no advantages whatsoever (and yes, I'm not going to lie on a video game forum since I'm not running for office. There's literally no reason to move to the rural Rust Belt, so why pull a mob boss style protection racket to force people to stay there? If people are there, pay them a real living wage if they can't find work and move on).

I mean, you can, because the point is that her messaging never came through. Bernie had big proposals for issues like criminal justice reform but they weren't properly incorporated into his messaging and it paid with voters he wanted to get.

Again, this is just you projecting your personal feelings onto the campaign. I'd argue Bernie's problem with minority voters wasn't due to a shallow "he didn't talk as much about me" argument either, for the same reason that white working class people weren't idiots about Clinton.

Don't make the argument that poor people are dumb and then defend it with "but the other voters are dumb too."

And I never mentioned the "white working class" because her black vote share was a real issue too. She got a smaller vote share from black voters than Gore and about the same as Kerry. These are real issues for the nonwhite working class, who will be hit just as hard by automation as white workers. When I was in Chicago almost every driver I had when using a public bus (or the one time my friends called an Uber). Do they not have a place in the future of America because they'll soon be out of work? We are in a pit of inequality fueled by the death of postwar liberal consensus and trying to technocratically tinker at the edges will not fix the fundamental problems with society, and those problems will affect workers of all skin colors.

Again, things like UBI should happen because we're close to a point where we only need like 2/3rds of the US to work all of the jobs. But the response to that fact shouldn't be a return to trade policy from 100 years ago. You're looking through a new telescope and you've spotted a meteor headed for Earth, and your solution (sounds like, I might be misunderstanding you) is to break all the new telescopes so we don't have to deal with looking at a meteor.

It's 2017, we need 2017 solutions. Going back to trade wars and isolation is only going to reduce the money we could be spreading around.

I imagine it's much sooner than you think, but my point is that for all people are talking about how automation will end industries, they seem largely unconcerned with most of the jobs they're advocating people get to replace the lost jobs so that then when those are automated ten years later they'll do what, exactly?

Literally answered this. It's because we need to solve the "100 million people will be unable to join the job market in like a decade" instead of stalling by thinking about "200 million people won't be joining the job market in 20 years" (probably more too, there are some fundamental problems with the translation to service jobs, which will stall that by a several years).

And I listed doctors and lawyers, but this potentially applies to teachers, accountants, writers, other health care professionals. It's not only low-skill manufacturing or service work that will be going away here.

Again, naming jobs doesn't change what I said. You're talking about retirement accounts when the person involved has pretty severe cancer. If you don't cure that, then what's the point of talking about their retirement?

Spoiler

what if the workers just owned the factory so they could get the benefits of automation instead of losing their jobs

Spoiler

What if we collected all profit in the US and split it up amongst all citizens equally? If we're just naming stuff that'll never happen.

Stuff like this is why I'd like some ground rules if we ever did that "PoliGAF Constitutional Convention." Because if we're just going to completely change the entire culture, history, and political makeup of the US, then why bother doing it at all?

 

[shinra-bansho]

Sneaky

Maybe I'm dumb. Possible. Or it's the fish in water thing. But I still don't get how this works.

Toyota engineers develop SMED. It cuts the time and labour requirements for die changes at factories from 4 hours to 10 mins. How is that shared between workers in their coop company thing?

Do you mean instead of this they would focus on other forms of automation?

This also ignores non-automation derived operational efficiency that reduces labour requirements. Is the solution to not advance operations management?

 

[ShironRedshift]

Probably because Democrats have to eat this loss. Trade Scalia for Scalia, fine. It is the next one that makes this an issue, i.e Ginsburg, Breyer, or Kennedy

No they don't. And the minute someone like Ginsburg or Kennedy goes, the filibuster is completely disappearing anyway because Mitch will cave at that point and will be unable to continue to resist to pure ecstasy from the rest of the GOP at such a tantalizing prize. No way is he sticking up against Trump and the rest of the Caucus at that point. Ain't going to happen. Expecting good faith from Republicans won't get us anywhere.

Like, just think about what you're saying here: we have to count on Mitch McConnell of all people to not be spineless should someone like Ginsburg go. McConnell. Expecting him to stick up to Trump and the rest of the Republicans in the Senate should Ginsburg go. McConnell. In that situation of all situations, with everyone breathing down his neck. That ain't happening. It's game over if that happens regardless.

Instead, go full steam ahead, stick up for our principles, and at least say we tried then relying on nonsense that will get us screwed anyway. Might as well fight when and while we can.

 

[Vixdean]

Filibustering Gorsuch is the easiest political decision of all time for a Democratic senator. The base is behind you, all you have to do is point to Garland's treatment by Republicans as justification, and there are literally no downsides to obstruction as we've learned over the last 8 years. Fuck functional government and respect for institutions, the GOP and Trump have already destroyed our democracy to an almost unrecognizable state. It's time to fight.

 

[mo60]

Right.

So trump is saying that his restriction on those 7 muslim majority countries is technically a muslim ban?

 

[shinra-bansho]

Does Pryor get two votes or something? Unless Gorsuch provides a significantly greater % that he is a moderate / swing on key issues the point is moot. NYT is saying Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia so whatever moderation power the filibuster supposedly holds it has not taken effect for the nomination to fill this seat.

The JCS is not a measure of "ideology of judge" it is based on ideology of nominating President and home state Senators at the time of appointment/elevation. Sotomayer, would have been labelled a conservative judge based on this metric in her early days as a Bush I appointment.