Nothing. They have money to just pick up any pet project or crazy idea, and think that their riches are enough to convince people they know more than you do.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Nothing. They have money to just pick up any pet project or crazy idea, and think that their riches are enough to convince people they know more than you do.
RustyNails
Member
Drain the swamp thoWow, what a fucking family. Husband is heir to a shady, scammy pyramid scheme, and brother founder of a mercenary group that has done some of the most horrible things to people in Iraq. So, what is it about this billionaire's history that gives her a fucking ounce of credibility with education?
Why would anyone trust Kushner? All we know about him is he is 35 year old guy whose dad bought him a ticket to Harvard, and his dad's been to jail.
He used his position as owner of the Observer to try and smear an old associate, Richard Mack, that refused to accept a substantial write down of the loan Kushner owed for the 666 Fifth Avenue building.
Spiers wrote that during her tenure as editor, in 2011 and 2012, Kushner had pushed for a hit piece on Mack. "If the tip he'd given me had checked out, it would have been a good story," she wrote. "So I agreed to put a reporter on the story." She gave the assignment to Dan Geiger, the Observer's real estate beat reporter. Kushner called Geiger and furiously complained that Mack was a "bad fiduciary" who'd moved money around to enrich himself at the expense of his investors. (Kushner declined to comment on the record for this article, but through his publicist he denied that his pursuit of the Mack story was related to the loan on 666 Fifth Avenue.)
Geiger phoned his contacts—as Spiers wrote, he "called everyone within a hundred-mile radius"—and found nothing. He sent Kushner a detailed email outlining what his sources had said.
For a week, Geiger heard nothing. Then Kushner called him and said, as if they had not already spoken, "There's a guy named Richard Mack, and we've got to get this guy."
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a47697/jared-kushner-trump-campaign/
I don't actually consider China a bogeyman. I think that the TPP would have benefited from Chinese inclusion. And that eventually the TPP and RCEP would ultimately merge into one trading bloc. I may be mistaken but I'm under the impression that there are provisions requiring the legalisation of non-state party affiliated trade unions. Something that afaik is not present in China.
Voting Democrat previously doesn't really mean one can't find appeal in the Wall, the Muslim ban, xenophobia, nationalism. I'm not sure where this actually comes from. The Republicans don't have a monopoly on racial animosity.
Although I hope you're right that when not if he reneges on helping anyone but himself, voters turn on him. I don't have confidence.
The problem is, that's not the only thing Democrats or any progressive person should be hoping for. They should also hope that Democrats get their act together and actually convince people to vote for them and not just against Trump.
RIght now, just two weeks after the election, nothing really is clear. Not on the Trump side or on "our" side.
It will take months or even a full year to clearly see what directions Democrats should make.
I want to bet everyone here that it's neither going to be Bernie, Pelosi, Obama, Ellison, Schumer or Warren who will get the Dems out of this rut, and within a year, things will look much different, for better or worse. But much clearer.
What IS TRUE, is that Dems shouldn't take long. If there's no obvious standard bearer by 2018, it's going to be difficult to defeat Trump and the Republicans if he isn't the apocalyptic president we all fear he will be or if he at least manages to convince his voters (and others) that he really brought good change to their lives.
whyamihere
Banned
I guess I can't take that much issue with DeVos because that's a pretty normal evil you'd expect for like a Jeb or Rubio.
Some good reading:
This article goes into detail why people bitching about "identity politics" piss me the fuck off. These two twitter threads reinforce that idea.
This article talks about the need and the best way to broaden the work of "identity politics" to reassemble a winning Democratic coalition across racial and class lines.
This article talks about what are the right lessons to take away from the election. The hot-take is to look at Nevada and the strength of unions. Try to reclaim the state governments and bolster/rebuild the unions to induce short term and eventual long term success.
This article goes into detail why people bitching about "identity politics" piss me the fuck off. These two twitter threads reinforce that idea.
This article talks about the need and the best way to broaden the work of "identity politics" to reassemble a winning Democratic coalition across racial and class lines.
This article talks about what are the right lessons to take away from the election. The hot-take is to look at Nevada and the strength of unions. Try to reclaim the state governments and bolster/rebuild the unions to induce short term and eventual long term success.
I guess I can't take that much issue with DeVos because that's a pretty normal evil you'd expect for like a Jeb or Rubio.
Yeah, I mean, it's not Trump evil, just regular evil, I guess.
Although education was never that big of a deal for Trump in the campaign, so I'm guessing this was an establishment choice, not a Trump one.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Unions aren't a viable long term answer. The kind of work (skilled labor where people are replaceable cogs) that supported them has been in constant decline.
Unions could work for the Service, Health, and Technology sectors that make up most of our jobs now. They just politically and culturally no longer have the power to break into those sectors.
One of the great failures of unions was never expanding outside of manufacturing in any meaningful way until it was too late.
I don't actually consider China a bogeyman. I think that the TPP would have benefited from Chinese inclusion. And that eventually the TPP and RCEP would ultimately merge into one trading bloc. I may be mistaken but I'm under the impression that there are provisions requiring the legalisation of non-state party affiliated trade unions. Something that afaik is not present in China.
Voting Democrat previously doesn't really mean one can't find appeal in the Wall, the Muslim ban, xenophobia, nationalism. I'm not sure where this actually comes from. The Republicans don't have a monopoly on racial animosity.
Although I hope you're right that when not if he reneges on helping anyone but himself, voters turn on him. I don't have confidence.
There is no such provision regarding legalization of non-state party affiliated trade unions. Here is the Labour Chapter:
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Final-Text-Labour.pdf
Its possible that the US could demand labor concessions in a side agreement, as conditions for joining the TPP, but that depends on what leverage is possible--the other 11 countries are interested in the benefits of trading with China. I mean, you saw this with the TPP negotiations--there were no concessions obtained from Japan on currency manipulation, maybe because it mostly effects 1 country more (US), while the other countries were motivated to increase trade with Japan. The US did not give much in the way of agricultural protections, probably for similar reasons.
My point is that polls have indicated that these specific voters were motivated by trade and have stated that they would also dump Trump because of trade. Tim Ryan, who is an anti-TPP Democrat, got 73.5% of the vote in Mahoning County, while Clinton got 49.7%--that's a 24% difference and indicates that Ohio is not a lost cause for Democrats.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
I wonder if it would be possible to change the way unions work.
Instead of joining one through a company, unions would be subscribed to outside companies. Then the workers would only work where the businesses have entered into agreements with said unions. The union's power would be in withholding workforce from companies, demand companies to adopt certain favorable measures towards workers, and lobbying.
Unions would basically vet companies to see if they are fit to employ their members. That way, you no longer have to get people to agree to join a union in the company itself, you seek to register people outside of companies, and pressure companies to adopt measures until they meet the criterias.
I think it would simplify the kind of demands union make to companies, it would become more generic, and would gather more interest both ways.
Instead of joining one through a company, unions would be subscribed to outside companies. Then the workers would only work where the businesses have entered into agreements with said unions. The union's power would be in withholding workforce from companies, demand companies to adopt certain favorable measures towards workers, and lobbying.
Unions would basically vet companies to see if they are fit to employ their members. That way, you no longer have to get people to agree to join a union in the company itself, you seek to register people outside of companies, and pressure companies to adopt measures until they meet the criterias.
I think it would simplify the kind of demands union make to companies, it would become more generic, and would gather more interest both ways.
There are tons of unions in health care though - Docs, Nurses, etc.Unions could work for the Service, Health, and Technology sectors that make up most of our jobs now. They just politically and culturally no longer have the power to break into those sectors.
One of the great failures of unions was never expanding outside of manufacturing in any meaningful way until it was too late.
Tech's problem is that for some areas, it should be treated like gig work, but not for others- it makes it awkard.
shinra-bansho
Member
Do you actually want a national standard bearer in 2018? Does Joe Manchin or Claire McCaskill want some overarching narrative to align to? The same as Democrats like Elizabeth Forma in safe MA.
What's needed is an organiser.
Edit: numble, yes I'm mistakenly referring to side agreements designed to pressure improved labour conditions.
What's needed is an organiser.
Edit: numble, yes I'm mistakenly referring to side agreements designed to pressure improved labour conditions.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
I wonder if it would be possible to change the way unions work.
Instead of joining one through a company, unions would be subscribed to, outside companies. Then the workers would only work where the businesses have entered into agreements with said unions. The union's power would be in withholding workforce from companies, and lobbying.
This would be closer to actor/performers/theater technicians unions. Which is exactly how they promote goals across various companies
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Do you actually want a national standard bearer in 2018? Does Joe Manchin or Claire McCaskill want some overarching narrative to align to? The same as Democrats like Elizabeth Forma in safe MA.
What's needed is an organiser.
No, not at all. All politics is national politics now. Over 90% of state legislature results can be explained by House results, over 90% of House results can be explained by Presidential results. We're not an era where you can segregate these messages any more - people form communities online, news travels. If you don't have a national standard bearer, you don't have a standard. You'll lose for lack of something to say.
shinra-bansho
Member
Hmm. Someone convince me, as someone in knowledge-based professional services, why I should want to join a union. Need a better value proposition.
Team Alucard
Banned
Unions aren't a viable long term answer. The kind of work (skilled labor where people are replaceable cogs) that supported them has been in constant decline.
The only area of the economy where unions are still strong and prevalent is the public sector, which are largely service jobs held by college-educated individuals.
Unions can absolutely work in a service economy. The problem is that the overwhelming advantage in resources and influence the anti-union crowd has present a significant barrier to organizing. Plus 30+ years of Reagan propaganda has distorted public opinion so much that labor rights are now seen as a bad thing.
They can when there's connectivity and a shared umbrella. That's not there for a lot of the modern economy.The only area of the economy where unions are still strong and prevalent is the public sector, which are largely service jobs held by college-educated individuals.
Unions can absolutely work in a service economy. The problem is that the resources and influence of the anti-union crowd present a significant barrier to organizing. Plus 30+ years of Reagan propaganda has distorted public opinion so much that labor rights are now seen as a bad thing.
shinra-bansho
Member
2018 is a midterm, you're already well aware.No, not at all. All politics is national politics now. Over 90% of state legislature results can be explained by House results, over 90% of House results can be explained by Presidential results. We're not an era where you can segregate these messages any more - people form communities online, news travels. If you don't have a national standard bearer, you don't have a standard. You'll lose for lack of something to say.
Who was the standard bearer for the 2010 GOP wave? McConnell? Boner?
whyamihere
Banned
So, looks like Stein is absolutely going to raise that money.
So, looks like Stein is absolutely going to raise that money.
The Wisconsin recount is already funded. At the very least this will put any conspiracy theories to rest.
The Wisconsin recount is already funded. At the very least this will put any conspiracy theories to rest.
Plus it's kinda a good thing Stein is doing this. They can't pin this on Hillary being a sore loser (though I'm sure they'll find a way) when it's a 3rd party candidate who has shown quite a bit of disdain for Hillary demanding it
Aaron Strife
Banned
If it flipped the results people would accuse Stein of being an undercover Hillary agentPlus it's kinda a good thing Stein is doing this. They can't pin this on Hillary being a sore loser (though I'm sure they'll find a way) when it's a 3rd party candidate who has shown quite a bit of disdain for Hillary demanding it
balladofwindfishes
Member
What happens if she hits 278 in the recount? Besides winning, I mean.
How would the Trumpers react? How would Obama act?
How would the Trumpers react? How would Obama act?
What happens if she hits 278 in the recount? Besides winning, I mean.
How would the Trumpers react? How would Obama act?
I can't imagine they would take it well at all. Obama on the other hand might breathe a sigh of relief in private, but he'd have a real shitshow of a situation on his hands and it would take no small amount of skill to navigate it.
Poodlestrike
Banned
What happens if she hits 278 in the recount? Besides winning, I mean.
How would the Trumpers react? How would Obama act?
This would be basically unprecedented, yeah? I mean, she'd win, but I can't even imagine how Trump voters would react, let alone the man himself.
This would be basically unprecedented, yeah? I mean, she'd win, but I can't even imagine how Trump voters would react, let alone the man himself.
God, it would be absolutely glorious.
This would be basically unprecedented, yeah? I mean, she'd win, but I can't even imagine how Trump voters would react, let alone the man himself.
Trump wouldn't care in private probably, but public is a different story. Republicans and trump supporters would get pissed if she somewhow managed to win the election after the recount.
Mackenzie 92
Member
just out of curiosity, are the electors from each state voting consist of both dems and repubs? or just the faction that won?
I know I'm dreaming but this isn't a usual election and 40 out of 568 seems somewhat plausible. I'm sure if I was an elector I'd say fuck it and vote for hillary especially with the popular vote going her way.
I know I'm dreaming but this isn't a usual election and 40 out of 568 seems somewhat plausible. I'm sure if I was an elector I'd say fuck it and vote for hillary especially with the popular vote going her way.
SenorArdilla
Member
What happens if she hits 278 in the recount? Besides winning, I mean.
How would the Trumpers react? How would Obama act?
RIGGED!
just out of curiosity, are the electors from each state voting consist of both dems and repubs? or just the faction that won?
I know I'm dreaming but this isn't a usual election and 40 out of 568 seems somewhat plausible. I'm sure if I was an elector I'd say fuck it and vote for hillary especially with the popular vote going her way.
They are electors that represent both the democratic and republican candidates, but this depends on the states the candidate won. The electors in AK for example will all be for trump. Trump has 306 electors(?) while hilary has 232(?).
balladofwindfishes
Member
Let's say this recount finds massive vote tampering by the Russians. The entire results of all three states are bunk. All tampered too much to pull out the honest data. In doing so, it also puts into question the results of the every other state.
How does the Constitution handle this situation? There's nothing in there, that I know if, that talks about redoing the election, and how would that even work?
What does Obama do?
How does the Constitution handle this situation? There's nothing in there, that I know if, that talks about redoing the election, and how would that even work?
What does Obama do?
Armoured Priest
Member
I had a thought (regarding the now likely ballot recount):
I recall a Racine Wi county clerk that had been found to have had like 30k ballots in the trunk of her car. I think it was either during the Walker recall election, or maybe 2012 election (possibly one of the the Wis supreme court judge elections).
It wasn't the first time this clerk got6 caught with shenanigans, but it was never enough to get her booted.
i don't recall her name, nor do I recall if she's still holding that position.
If she is, that might be a place to look.
Hopefully someone with better memory/google-fu then mine can find it.
I recall a Racine Wi county clerk that had been found to have had like 30k ballots in the trunk of her car. I think it was either during the Walker recall election, or maybe 2012 election (possibly one of the the Wis supreme court judge elections).
It wasn't the first time this clerk got6 caught with shenanigans, but it was never enough to get her booted.
i don't recall her name, nor do I recall if she's still holding that position.
If she is, that might be a place to look.
Hopefully someone with better memory/google-fu then mine can find it.
Let's say this recount finds massive vote tampering by the Russians. The entire results of all three states are bunk. All tampered too much to pull out the honest data. In doing so, it also puts into question the results of the every other state.
How does the Constitution handle this situation? There's nothing in there, that I know if, that talks about redoing the election, and how would that even work?
What does Obama do?
If there was Russian tampering and we couldn't trust any data we'd be in a situation we've never been in before. Obama would literally have to make it up on the fly. It would be among the biggest fucking political shitshows of all time.
Mackenzie 92
Member
They are electors that represent both the democratic and republican candidates, but this depends on the states the candidate won. The electors in AK for example will all be for trump. Trump has 306 electors(?) while hilary has 232(?).
shit.
He would literally have to call for an entire re-do election.If there was Russian tampering and we couldn't trust any data we'd be in a situation we've never been in before. Obama would literally have to make it up on the fly. It would be among the biggest fucking political shitshows of all time.
shit.
There are still electors like those two electors in WA that may end up being faithless to hilary or trump
balladofwindfishes
Member
If there was Russian tampering and we couldn't trust any data we'd be in a situation we've never been in before. Obama would literally have to make it up on the fly. It would be among the biggest fucking political shitshows of all time.
On the plus side, he'd remain president until this was sorted.
I like doing thought experiments about how far the Constitution can be stretched. Technically, a redo of the election could be seen as unconstitutional.
He would literally have to call for an entire re-do election.
But who takes over until then? If Obama stays in office until the re-do election it's going to be a giant mess. And even after the re-do, who the hell would trust the results? We'd be in a situation where we literally couldn't trust the results of an election. The entire system would have to be overhauled first and no one would be able to trust anyone else to do the job. This would turn into a six month shitshow at the very least.
balladofwindfishes
Member
But who takes over until then? If Obama stays in office until the re-do election it's going to be a giant mess. And even after the re-do, who the hell would trust the results? We'd be in a situation where we literally couldn't trust the results of an election. The entire system would have to be overhauled first and no one would be able to trust anyone else to do the job. This would turn into a six month shitshow at the very least.
Per the Constitution, Obama would remain the president until the results were settled.
Edit: NO WAIT, Biden would be president, I think. The Constitution says the VP takes over if no result is found by January 20
But who takes over until then? If Obama stays in office until the re-do election it's going to be a giant mess. And even after the re-do, who the hell would trust the results? We'd be in a situation where we literally couldn't trust the results of an election. The entire system would have to be overhauled first and no one would be able to trust anyone else to do the job. This would turn into a six month shitshow at the very least.
There wouldn't be a redo.
The electors will simply vote until Trump, Hillary or somebody else who gets 270. The Constitution clearly says that electors chose the president, not a popular vote.
Even if suddenly it turns out that there's not real confidence in the results of elections in many states, it won't matter. Obama will probably (very likely) insist that the Constitutional process continues and that either Electoral College or Congress chose a winner. End of story.
Hillary will have to campaign to convince the electors that, having won the popular vote, she should be president. But of course, the electors might just not GAF.
Anyway, somebody posted this article earlier, and I loved this part:
But what’s not funny about all this is that we are in a moment of national crisis, in which the developmental stage of the Dirtbag Left might be mistaken for a flash of political wisdom, when prioritization of the (yes, systemic) approaches to reducing racial, gender, and class inequality is most likely to be walked back in the name of distancing the party from the women and people of color who lost the election.
I hope the idea that "identity politics" was the mistake, doesn't stick around much, and I suspect it won't. Especially after Trump gets into office.
EDIT: Oh shit, I didn't know that.
Per the Constitution, Obama would remain the president until the results were settled.
Edit: NO WAIT, Biden would be president, I think. The Constitution says the VP takes over if no result is found by January 20
Per the Constitution, Obama would remain the president until the results were settled.
Edit: NO WAIT, Biden would be president, I think. The Constitution says the VP takes over if no result is found by January 20
He really was Biden his time.
His US Trade Representative will need Senate confirmation anyway. The GOP isn't going to confirm a protectionist.
I think the reality of negotiating trade agreements are that the US aims to be as protectionist as possible. If it was just about basic economic theories about free trade, the agreements can be agreed to quite quickly--you lower tariffs and I lower tariffs. In reality, trade deal negotiation really is about a lot of horse trading and trying to give the fewest concessions as possible.
Here are some details about such horse trading regarding the NAFTA negotiation, under a Republican administration:
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=417851577
Protectionism is actually part of the job. Otherwise the TPP wouldn't be still filled with so many quotas and limitations.SORINI: I'm dealing with almost on a daily basis Sen. Strom Thurmond, Sen. Jesse Helms. They were saying to me, be very careful, be very cautious, you know, we know we need to protect the jobs here.
...
Now the Americans had decided that they would give the Canadians what they want. They would let 3 million Canadian suits into the U.S. tax free because the U.S. really needed a deal. But Ron decides he is going to bluff. Ron says, you know, the best we can do - 1.4 million suits. That's all I got.
SORINI: I said I'm sorry. That's all - you know, it's up to Ambassador Hills obviously, but that's all the room I think that we can - you know, that we have to maneuver. And Carla said that's right, that's it, Mr. Minister, and we settled.
SMITH: Suckers. The Canadians accepted the deal, and that was it. NAFTA was done, goes into the history books.
Rob Portman, one of the Senators from Ohio and seen as "protectionist" and against the TPP, was also a US Trade Representative under GWB and negotiated the recent FTAs that the US has ratified, so I disagree with the notion that a USTR cannot be seen as protectionist.
balladofwindfishes
Member
I hope the idea that "identity politics" was the mistake, doesn't stick around much, and I suspect it won't. Especially after Trump gets into office.
EDIT: Oh shit, I didn't know that.
if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
It was changed to Jan 20th. Also it was apparently changed to Vice President-elect. But how... would there be a VP-elect?
Would Mike Pence be president?
It means Biden would be president, wouldn't it?It was changed to Jan 20th. Also it was apparently changed to Vice President-elect. But how... would there be a VP-elect?
Would Mike Pence be president?
shinra-bansho
Member
I think you really do focus on specific words (I) use way too much. Yes, I'm aware trade negotiations are a game of horse trading to come to an agreeable position. And that the US wants access to markets for its industries, with reciprocal opening in certain areas itself to make this palatable. I thought it was clear though the intent if not the wording. The GOP isn't going to want an anti-trade liberalisation USTR. The people around Trump don't want that. Trump doesn't even want that despite the crap he says.
Trump is not some bastion of "fair trade".
Trump is not some bastion of "fair trade".
whyamihere
Banned
Which Clintonworld person do you think donated the most to Jill Stein
- Status
- Not open for further replies.