US Politics

[bono_212]

This whole thing with Qatar and Iran should be way more of a story than it is, IMO. We're basically abandoning one of our bases, and victim blaming a country for coming under a terrorist attack for a group *THEY DON'T SUPPORT*. Holy shit, we're back to pre-Obama level's of government ignorance of the Muslim religion and it's beyond baffling at this point that we still don't know the difference between Sunni's and Shia's.

Fuck.

 

[Danny Boy]

This whole thing with Qatar and Iran should be way more of a story than it is, IMO. We're basically abandoning one of our bases, and victim blaming a country for coming under a terrorist attack for a group *THEY DON'T SUPPORT*. Holy shit, we're back to pre-Obama level's of government ignorance of the Muslim religion and it's beyond baffling at this point that we still don't know the difference between Sunni's and Shia's.

Fuck.

Personally I thought it was hilarious that Orange Donnie tried to take credit for something that turned out to be a reaction to fake news, but yeah this administration's foreign policy is a disaster. But so is their domestic policy, so...

 

[mama cass]

This whole thing with Qatar and Iran should be way more of a story than it is, IMO. We're basically abandoning one of our bases, and victim blaming a country for coming under a terrorist attack for a group *THEY DON'T SUPPORT*. Holy shit, we're back to pre-Obama level's of government ignorance of the Muslim religion and it's beyond baffling at this point that we still don't know the difference between Sunni's and Shia's.

Fuck.

 

[mama cass]

Corbyn lost

wtf? we haven't actually had the election yet! or have i overslept big time and missed a whole day?

 

[BEAL]

PhilsFan kind of predicted Le Penn too, so let's hope he's wrong with Corbyn as well.

But the LP statement was more made in jest.

As for Trump, we need to move off the impeachment talk and really hope he just gets too tired to do the job and resigns.

That's best case. Worst case is his dumbfuckery starts a god damn world war.

I don't know a ton about Iran, but from what I've read (here and elsewhere) is you have a very extremist older generation, which holds power. Then you have younger generation who seem to be much more liberal in their views and lives. The thought is Iran is only another generation or two from changing, and maybe for the better.

Then you have the Orange one who basically says fuck you iran, you did this to yourself.

He's building more and more hate

 

[LuckyNumber7]

PhilsFan kind of predicted Le Penn too, so let's hope he's wrong with Corbyn as well.

But the LP statement was more made in jest.

As for Trump, we need to move off the impeachment talk and really hope he just gets too tired to do the job and resigns.

That's best case. Worst case is his dumbfuckery starts a god damn world war.

I don't know a ton about Iran, but from what I've read (here and elsewhere) is you have a very extremist older generation, which holds power. Then you have younger generation who seem to be much more liberal in their views and lives. The thought is Iran is only another generation or two from changing, and maybe for the better.

Then you have the Orange one who basically says fuck you iran, you did this to yourself.

He's building more and more hate

He must be a wizard, considering Le Pen was a media manufactured "close race."

Labour has been trailing significantly. It would be a welcomed surprise, were they to win today.

 

[PhilsFan]

The majority of people when looking at fundamentally drastic change will need detail and understanding, that's human nature.

Trump didn't need detail because he was selling fundamentally drastic change back to a time that his followers thought they knew.

I agree the DNC's not recognizing there was opportunity to explore was a mistake.

And no, do not mistaken my respect for context and not condemning a person for something they didn't actively sought out as an "instinct to defend". If anything it says more about your instinct. You are condemning a wife of someone within an institution that continued a practice to which you have very little context. If it was anyone else you'd never even think of holding her somehow accountable.

Increasing taxes on the rich is something we should all get behind. Recognizing how much impact economic inequality has on literally everything should be something we all get behind. He was the only candidate pushing for those things. I don't hero worship Sanders, or anyone in politics. I don't believe in purity tests; if I did, Sanders wouldn't pass. But even if no one had all the answers, he was the only candidate in 2016 asking the right questions.

I'm not going to get into this on the Clinton governor mansion thing, because that was not my intention, but I strongly, strongly disagree and resent the implication I'm holding her to a different standard than others.

my thoughts exactly.

Thanks for your input.

 

[iron yuppie]

Increasing taxes on the rich is something we should all get behind. Recognizing how much impact economic inequality has on literally everything should be something we all get behind. He was the only candidate pushing for those things. I don't hero worship Sanders, or anyone in politics. I don't believe in purity tests; if I did, Sanders wouldn't pass. But even if no one had all the answers, he was the only candidate in 2016 asking the right questions.

It's not just the rich, though. If a lot of these social goals that people on the "left" profess to care about are going to be met, it will mean higher taxes on middle and upper middle-class people as well. IMO that is the real thing that scared people away from Bernie, whether they want to admit it or not: people say they want a left-leaning state so long as someone else pays for it, usually everyone just above their pay grade. It can't just be the rich, because in practice they have every incentive and resource in the world to disguise, launder, or shield their income. It will need to be a group financial effort. This is how European states do it, and there is really no way around it economically.

And I really don't believe as BVS keeps saying that lack of "specifics" was Sanders' problem. Him coming out with a detailed deadweight loss analysis or something like that was not going to win him a significant amount of voters.

 

[Irvine511]

Robert Reich has a pretty good assessment of what's happening today, as no one in town is getting any work done:

I’m in Washington today. Here’s what I’m finding:
1. The mood in the city is the same combination of jubilation and dread I recall just before the Watergate hearings over 4 decades ago, among Republicans as well as Democrats.
2. The jubilation is that, with Comey’s testimony, the nation seems to be moving into a new phase of scrutiny of Trump, who, like Nixon, looks increasingly cornered and desperate.
3. The dread is at what a cornered and desperate Trump might get up to next.
4. I don’t know anyone in the Trump White House, but I’ve spoken with some people who do. They tell me the White House is split between a few Trump loyalists who are at war with almost everyone else in this town, and others who are looking for ways to bail out.
5. Congressional watchers here say there’s zero chance Paul Ryan’s House will move toward an impeachment inquiry, regardless of what Comey says.
6. This raises the stakes for the midterm elections next year, which most people here are already viewing as a referendum on whether to Trump remains in office.
7. This, in turn, is making it harder for congressional Republicans who are likely to be in close races to defend Trump.
8. And it’s putting ever more pressure on congressional Democrats to publicly declare that Trump should be impeached, even though Democratic leaders are trying to discourage such talk.
9. Meanwhile, nothing is moving on Capitol Hill. Senate Republicans can't agree on a replacement for the Affordable Care Act. House Republicans can't agree on a tax cut. At the same time, civil servants in executive branch agencies and departments -- who do most of the day-to-day work of government -- are understaffed, overwhelmed, confused, and wary.
10. Bottom line: Washington under Trump is more dysfunctional than I've ever seen it. And that's saying something.

 

[Irvine511]

IMO that is the real thing that scared people away from Bernie, whether they want to admit it or not: people say they want a left-leaning state so long as someone else pays for it, usually everyone just above their pay grade.

why do you think this is?

 

[Danny Boy]

Hey, let's bomb Syria again the same day Comey testifies.

 

[BEAL]

It's not just the rich, though. If a lot of these social goals that people on the "left" profess to care about are going to be met, it will mean higher taxes on middle and upper middle-class people as well. IMO that is the real thing that scared people away from Bernie, whether they want to admit it or not: people say they want a left-leaning state so long as someone else pays for it, usually everyone just above their pay grade. It can't just be the rich, because in practice they have every incentive and resource in the world to disguise, launder, or shield their income. It will need to be a group financial effort. This is how European states do it, and there is really no way around it economically.

And I really don't believe as BVS keeps saying that lack of "specifics" was Sanders' problem. Him coming out with a detailed deadweight loss analysis or something like that was not going to win him a significant amount of voters.

Agree with this. I am by no means a 1%, but I am upper middle class, and single. Under Bernie's tax proposal, I was looking at a huge loss of income. If I still lived in Iowa, I would have been just fine as cost of living is dirt cheap, and I could easily cut back on certain expenses.

I live in San Diego. To lose the amount of income under Bernie plan, I probably would have needed to get at least one roommate to survive, even with cutting expenses. So naturally I would fee like why am I being punished? The uber rich would lose a lot too, but they're still rich.

All this being said, I would have voted for him over Trump. Even with the potential of financial loss.

 

[BEAL]

Robert Reich has a pretty good assessment of what's happening today, as no one in town is getting any work done:

I like Robert, but he is a bit of a fear monger with Trump. It's not that his points aren't valid, but it's that he makes them 500x a day which starts to come across as chicken little.

Trump is not getting impeached. He could walk into this hearing and shoot Comey, and the GOP would still support him.

Our best hope is Trump's world class stamina gives out, and he just cannot do the job anymore.

 

[bono_212]

I didn't vote for Bernie, but I did vote for several CA props that increased my taxes. I do actually want more social evening of burdens. I don't want someone who isn't going to tell me how it's going to happen or who is going to move to far, too fast.

I'm just one person, though. I'm not going to make sweeping generalizations about everyone based on how I feel. I can only speak for me.

 

[PhilsFan]

It's not just the rich, though. If a lot of these social goals that people on the "left" profess to care about are going to be met, it will mean higher taxes on middle and upper middle-class people as well. IMO that is the real thing that scared people away from Bernie, whether they want to admit it or not: people say they want a left-leaning state so long as someone else pays for it, usually everyone just above their pay grade. It can't just be the rich, because in practice they have every incentive and resource in the world to disguise, launder, or shield their income. It will need to be a group financial effort. This is how European states do it, and there is really no way around it economically.

And I really don't believe as BVS keeps saying that lack of "specifics" was Sanders' problem. Him coming out with a detailed deadweight loss analysis or something like that was not going to win him a significant amount of voters.

I think it's partially true but also underexplained. For example, yes, taxes would go up under single-payer for everyone in order to finance it, but think of what you were already paying for health insurance.

 

[TheFox]

So whilst this shit show goes on in Washington, Syria is escalating rapidly today and NK are firing off missiles every week. What an absolute mess. Third WW stuff.

 

[iron yuppie]

why do you think this is?

Loss aversion, basically. I think it's pretty well established in psychology and behavioral econ that people will see a loss of income as disproportionately large in comparison to a similar gain. In the context of an individual loss vs a societal gain, loss aversion is even further magnified.

 

[bono_212]

Maybe this is the first time I've heard John McCain talk in a while, has he been this incoherent a lot recently?

 

[BoMac]

Is John McCain having a stroke?

He kept quoting Comey's use of "it's a big deal", but what he said several minutes earlier was "if any Americans had helped the Russians do this to us that's a big deal."

Maybe McCain is unaware that the investigation into Clinton's email use and into Russian meddling into the 2016 election are two separate things and it's normal for one investigation to conclude before the other.

 

[bono_212]

That was the most troubling, cringy awkward thing I've ever watched on live television. And I saw the John Travolta hug thing when it happened. Oh, Maverick .

 

[Irvine511]

Loss aversion, basically. I think it's pretty well established in psychology and behavioral econ that people will see a loss of income as disproportionately large in comparison to a similar gain. In the context of an individual loss vs a societal gain, loss aversion is even further magnified.

I guess my question is more why this approach has never been successful in the US whereas it has in several European democracies.

 

[DaveC]

good lord the excessive (glorified) hyperbole in this forum drives me nuts sometimes.

 

[bono_212]

https://twitter.com/ChuckWendig/status/872855073054969857

[TWEET]872855073054969857[/TWEET]

 

[corianderstem]

The word "president" was misspelled in the opening line of the response from Trump's lawyer.

If that doesn't sum up this entire shitshow, I don't know what does.

 

[anitram]

Agree with this. I am by no means a 1%, but I am upper middle class, and single. Under Bernie's tax proposal, I was looking at a huge loss of income. If I still lived in Iowa, I would have been just fine as cost of living is dirt cheap, and I could easily cut back on certain expenses.

I live in San Diego. To lose the amount of income under Bernie plan, I probably would have needed to get at least one roommate to survive, even with cutting expenses. So naturally I would fee like why am I being punished? The uber rich would lose a lot too, but they're still rich.

This is the problem with the simplistic "tax the top 1/5/10%" stuff we hear all the time. Several issues with it:

1. We have to divorce the notions of income and wealth. These seem to be almost interchangeable by some people who seem to think that the rich are those who make a lot of $, hence they are rich. The truth is that most people who make up the top 5% which is actually not that high a threshold of INCOME are people who are generally the working upper middle class in high earning professions. Most of them are NOT rich and many live in liberal/coastal "elite" areas where their incomes are actually not particularly extraordinary. These are the couples with kids making $275K per year in San Francisco or NYC. Sure that sounds rich when you live in the middle of nowhere, Kansas, but try renting a livable space in Manhattan or buying a house in Westchester County within commuting distance and do the math. The truly wealthy often have little or very low income in relation to their wealth because their wealth has been accumulated over the years/generations and is squirreled away by tax lawyers.

2. When you start ranting about increasing taxes on these people, many of whom are probably like-minded voters as you generally, you are saying to them that you think it is appropriate that family comprised of say a VP in HR and an orthodontist making $350K per year should have their taxes hiked to 50, 55, 60% while Warren Buffet who paid himself $100K in income in the same year should be at a lower marginal tax rate. If you think that Buffet is the only millionaire/billionaire with extraordinary wealth BUT LOW ACTIVE INCOME then I hate to ruin your day, but...so who do you think will bear the burden of increasing income tax? The working upper middle class, in addition to the middle class because that much $ needs to come from somewhere. Rationally, it makes little sense to go after this socioeconomic group.

3. If you want to start talking about aggressively taxing wealth, you quickly run into problems of globalization and the fact that with today's mobility, nobody needs to live in the US, least of all the ultra rich.

This is not to say that we can't have a better tax code and that the general concept of noblesse oblige should be abandoned, but let's at least start intelligently discussing realistic ways of getting this done rather than screaming about the rich.

 

[anitram]

All this being said, I would have voted for him over Trump. Even with the potential of financial loss.

Short of him dropping dead while chowing down on a bucket of KFC, the best reason has always been and will remain to be, the markets tanking.

The problem is that the markets probably aren't going to go down significantly until maybe 12-18 months from now, they typically begin to drop out about 6 months before a recession (even a mild one) and right now the markers for a recession are not suggestive of one occurring in the immediate future.

 

[DaveC]

i gotta say the historian in me became a bit tumescent when comey out of nowhere made reference to the thomas a becket/henry ii affair this morning.

"will no one rid me of this turbulent priest" was pretty low on the list of things i expected to hear today [emoji38]

 

[BEAL]

CNN listed Thomas Becket as one of the winners, just for the reference haha

 

[BVS]

The word "president" was misspelled in the opening line of the response from Trump's lawyer.

If that doesn't sum up this entire shitshow, I don't know what does.

Unpresidented

 

[Irvine511]

i can understand some of the eyerolling at Hillary, but she was dead-on about this stuff.

CLINTON: So I actually think the most important question of this evening, Chris, is, finally, will Donald Trump admit and condemn that the Russians are doing this and make it clear that he will not have the help of Putin in in this election, that he rejects Russian espionage against Americans, which he actually encouraged in the past? Those are the questions we need answered. We've never had anything like this happen in any of our elections before.
WALLACE: Well?
TRUMP: That was a great pivot off the fact that she wants open borders, OK? How did we get on to Putin?
WALLACE: Hold on -- hold on, wait. Hold on, folks. Because we -- this is going to end up getting out of control. Let's try to keep it quiet so -- for the candidates and for the American people.
TRUMP: So just to finish on the borders...
WALLACE: Yes?
TRUMP: She wants open borders. People are going to pour into our country. People are going to come in from Syria. She wants 550 percent more people than Barack Obama, and he has thousands and thousands of people. They have no idea where they come from.
And you see, we are going to stop radical Islamic terrorism in this country. She won't even mention the words, and neither will President Obama. So I just want to tell you, she wants open borders.
Now we can talk about Putin. I don't know Putin. He said nice things about me. If we got along well, that would be good. If Russia and the United States got along well and went after ISIS, that would be good.
He has no respect for her. He has no respect for our president. And I'll tell you what: We're in very serious trouble, because we have a country with tremendous numbers of nuclear warheads -- 1,800, by the way -- where they expanded and we didn't, 1,800 nuclear warheads. And she's playing chicken. Look, Putin...
WALLACE: Wait, but...
TRUMP: ... from everything I see, has no respect for this person.
CLINTON: Well, that's because he'd rather have a puppet as president of the United States.
TRUMP: No puppet. No puppet.
CLINTON: And it's pretty clear...
TRUMP: You're the puppet!
CLINTON: It's pretty clear you won't admit...
TRUMP: No, you're the puppet.
CLINTON: ... that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race.
So I think that this is such an unprecedented situation. We've never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17 -- 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing.
WALLACE: Secretary Clinton...
CLINTON: And I think it's time you take a stand...
TRUMP: She has no idea whether it's Russia, China, or anybody else.
CLINTON: I am not quoting myself.
TRUMP: She has no idea.
CLINTON: I am quoting 17...
TRUMP: Hillary, you have no idea.
CLINTON: ... 17 intelligence -- do you doubt 17 military and civilian...
TRUMP: And our country has no idea.
CLINTON: ... agencies.
TRUMP: Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it.
CLINTON: Well, he'd rather believe Vladimir Putin than the military and civilian intelligence professionals who are sworn to protect us. I find that just absolutely...
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: She doesn't like Putin because Putin has outsmarted her at every step of the way.