PoliGAF 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeff Sessions is named after the leader of a traitorous fake country that didn't even last a decade and lost the only war it ever fought. It fought that war because it wanted the ability to own other people.

He lives up to his namesake.
 
The amount of fluff Sessions is spewing drives me insane. The fact that he gets up there and talks about standing up for everyone, but his record clearly shows this is not true.

He has been spewing basically blue lives matter for the majority of his time.
 
Sanders said he'd listen to Sessions...

Sigh...

I'm done. I just keep thinking, "this ya mans".
Sanders can't be allowed to take over the Democratic party in any capacity. He is a dangerous demagogue who thinks giving evil dipshits a chance is good because, the 'racist white people are hurting economically and that is why they hate minorities.'

Democrats should never appease racists. You should never give them a chance to speak unless your goal is to shame them into losing their jobs, which is clearly not the goal here.
 
It would be very unusual for that to happen for the president's party in a midterm.
This is worth noting. For all the talk of "Democrats don't turn out in midterms" people are basing that on 2010 and 2014, which basically fit historical patterns. The president's party almost always loses House seats in midterms. Recent exceptions are:

2002, when 9/11 was still fresh in people's minds and Bush, although down from his 90% heights, was still quite popular.

1998, when the Republican Congress impeached a popular Bill Clinton.

Before that you have to go all the way back to 1934 and the Great Depression.

The Senate doesn't quite fit the pattern as cleanly (not surprising given the smaller number of seats and staggered six year terms) and certainly the 2018 map is so brutal that just holding steady would be a victory of sorts.

On the other hand, there's plenty of room to play offense in terms of governorships, which could help a lot with 2020 redistricting.
 
Sanders can't be allowed to take over the Democratic party in any capacity. He is a dangerous demagogue who thinks giving evil dipshits a chance is good because, the 'racist white people are hurting economically and that is why they hate minorities.'
How is this still such a pervasive narrative, it's been talked to death here. Anyway Sessions is trash.
 
Sanders can't be allowed to take over the Democratic party in any capacity. He is a dangerous demagogue who thinks giving evil dipshits a chance is good because, the 'racist white people are hurting economically and that is why they hate minorities.'
I think sometimes people put too much stock into what politicians say. "I'm willing to listen/open to..." are pretty standard political talk for "this is the honeymoon and I'll wait before bringing the knives out." Most republicans said the exact same thing about Obama and look how it turned out.

Trump is going to have a shorter honeymoon IMO. He's far more unpopular than Obama/W/Clinton/HW/Reagan/etc were when they were sworn in. He lost the popular vote by a significant margin.
 
This is worth noting. For all the talk of "Democrats don't turn out in midterms" people are basing that on 2010 and 2014, which basically fit historical patterns. The president's party almost always loses House seats in midterms. Recent exceptions are:

2002, when 9/11 was still fresh in people's minds and Bush, although down from his 90% heights, was still quite popular.

1998, when the Republican Congress impeached a popular Bill Clinton.

Before that you have to go all the way back to 1934 and the Great Depression.

The Senate doesn't quite fit the pattern as cleanly (not surprising given the smaller number of seats and staggered six year terms) and certainly the 2018 map is so brutal that just holding steady would be a victory of sorts.

On the other hand, there's plenty of room to play offense in terms of governorships, which could help a lot with 2020 redistricting.
Democrats not taking back the house is a reality, though, because after the Tea Party wave of 2010, they had the benefit of being elected right after the census came out and could thus draw the districts in their favor. Sure, courts are taking them to task now, but there is no way enough of the bullshit will be reversed in time for the 2018 season.
 
I certainly have my problems with Sanders, and he is prone to saying some kinda dumb things, but this thread is also awfully quick to jump on him for saying things that other Democrats are saying too.

More broadly, I think the desire to "crush" Sanders is counterproductive. The thing about intra-party disputes is that you often need each faction to win, and each has the option of walking. There are times when one faction is so out of step with the rest of the party (e.g. pre-Civil Rights Era Southern Democrats) that it's best to just let them walk, but I don't think most of Bernie's supporters even come close to meeting that. A majoritarian solution may feel good, but such a victory is likely to be pyrrhic (see UK Labour and the Corbynites) it's better to try and work out a consensus solution.

Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't push back against terrible narratives like "Democrats need to abandon social issues and focus on a purely economic platform" nor should we try to accommodate every Bernie supporter. The ones who actively hate the party or are only willing to support their hero du jour aren't worth it, but I don't think they're as large a faction as comes across online, where they are disproportionately represented.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
My beef with Sanders on this very specific sort of thing is that his whole brand is being "angry outsider who's not afraid to challenge norms". I'm disappointed in other Democrats for not standing up to things like the Sessions appointment, but I'm annoyed at Sanders about it. What use is that brand if you're not going to use it for cases like this?
 
I get the feeling people expect someone to throw a shoe or something at Sessions. Straight up shout the man down and call him a liar to his face or something out of this world. That's not how this goes. That was never how any of this went.

If I was a betting man, I'd put Tillerson on the short list for people getting denied, Sessions is too well liked in the Senate.
 
I get the feeling people expect someone to throw a shoe or something at Sessions. Straight up shout the man down and call him a liar to his face or something out of this world. That's not how this goes. That was never how any of this went.

If I was a betting man, I'd put Tillerson on the short list for people getting denied, Sessions is too well liked in the Senate.
He's a sitting senator. He was always getting confirmed.
 
Sanders said he'd listen to Sessions...

Sigh...

I'm done. I just keep thinking, "this ya mans".
Doing what you seem to suggest wouldn't sway anybody. Just like sanders said he'd work with trump if trump brings a good infrastructure bill, then railed on the proposed infrastructure plan on the merits, sanders isn't compromising or rolling over to trump's picks. Sanders is trying to give the impression that he's operating on principle, not partisanship. Dismissing trump outright just gives people on the other side another excuse to dismiss people on the left. Instead of outright dismissing, sanders tries to explain why it's bad -- that's how he's trying to reach out to those flip voters.
 
Ooof.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2415

American voters approve 55 - 39 percent of the job President Barack Obama is doing, his best approval rating in seven years, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. These same voters disapprove 51 - 37 percent of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president-elect.

Donald Trump will be a worse president than Barack Obama, 45 percent of voters say, while 34 percent say he will be a better president and 15 percent say he will be about the same, American voters tell the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll.

Americans are optimistic 52 - 43 percent about the next four years with Trump as president and say 47 - 31 percent that he will help rather than hurt the nation's economy.

Trump will be a "great" president, 12 percent of voters say; 30 percent say he will be a "good" president; 20 percent say he will be "not so good" and 32 percent say he will be "bad."

The measures of Trump's personal qualities all are more negative than they were in a November 22 Quinnipiac University poll:
53 - 39 percent that he is not honest, compared to 52 - 42 percent November 22;
49 - 44 percent that he has good leadership skills, compared to 56 - 38 percent;
52 - 44 percent that he does not care about average Americans, compared to 51 - 45 percent who said he did care;
62 - 33 percent that he is not level-headed, compared to 57 - 38 percent;
71 - 25 percent that he is a strong person, compared to 74 - 23 percent;
68 - 27 percent that he is intelligent, compared to 74 - 21 percent.
A total of 44 percent of voters are "very confident" or "somewhat confident" that Trump will make things better for them and their family, while 53 percent are "not very confident" or "not confident at all."

American voters disapprove 40 - 30 percent of the individuals Trump has nominated for his cabinet, with 28 percent who say they haven't heard enough about them.

Trump's election makes them feel "less safe," 45 percent of voters say, while 27 percent say they feel "more safe" and 27 percent say they feel "just as safe."

Voters support 72 - 22 percent, including 52 - 42 percent among Republicans, a review of Trump's finances to identify possible conflicts of interest.
American voters, especially young voters, say 64 - 32 percent that Trump should close his personal Twitter account. Republicans say 49 - 45 percent Trump should keep his Twitter account. Voters in every other party, gender, age and racial group say close the account. Voters 18 to 34 years old say 71 - 26 percent that Trump should close the Twitter account, higher than any other age group.
Crosstabs at link.
 
Doing what you seem to suggest wouldn't sway anybody. Just like sanders said he'd work with trump if trump brings a good infrastructure bill, then railed on the proposed infrastructure plan on the merits, sanders isn't compromising or rolling over to trump's picks. Sanders is trying to give the impression that he's operating on principle, not partisanship. Dismissing trump outright just gives people on the other side another excuse to dismiss people on the left. Instead of outright dismissing, sanders tries to explain why it's bad -- that's how he's trying to reach out to those flip voters.
That is not a winning strategy. You don't beat republicans by being nice and comprising the basic principle of not negotiating with racist and evil mother fuckers, you beat them by doing exactly what they've been doing over the years. You oppose them on everything.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Senate Judiciary Dem Verified account
‏@JudiciaryDems

Sessions on protecting women & LGBTQ: ”I am not sure women or people with different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination."
 
Sanders can't be allowed to take over the Democratic party in any capacity. He is a dangerous demagogue who thinks giving evil dipshits a chance is good because, the 'racist white people are hurting economically and that is why they hate minorities.'

Democrats should never appease racists. You should never give them a chance to speak unless your goal is to shame them into losing their jobs, which is clearly not the goal here.
Hillary said "We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead" the day after the election but clearly it's only Sanders that's doing this.
 
Sanders can't be allowed to take over the Democratic party in any capacity. He is a dangerous demagogue who thinks giving evil dipshits a chance is good because, the 'racist white people are hurting economically and that is why they hate minorities.'

Democrats should never appease racists. You should never give them a chance to speak unless your goal is to shame them into losing their jobs, which is clearly not the goal here.
Just because you have fingers doesn't mean you should type.
 
I liked bernie but capping a limit as to how much a person can earn it not a bright idea (it sounds like one but it's not)
I like bernie too, and he is now being tarred for the things the incompetent british opposition say! jfc

Also: Ending DACA will cost states billions of dollars
Since June 2012, more than 752,000 people who came to the United States as children have benefitted from Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. This initiative has provided recipients with a temporary reprieve from deportation and renewable work permits. DACA has lessened the barriers for these recipients to reach their full potential—they have been able to secure good jobs, obtain driver's licenses, and pursue higher education—so that they might better contribute to their communities. A 2016 survey of DACA recipients shows that they work across many different industries ranging from educational and health services to nonprofits. Along with receiving higher wages, DACA recipients are buying cars, homes, and other goods and services to boost local economies. But this quintessential embodiment of the American dream is under attack. During his campaign, President-elect Donald Trump threatened to end DACA, along with other executive actions. While it remains to be seen what specific actions the president-elect will take, the fate of DACA is still uncertain. But if the president-elect ends DACA, whether in a single action or by allowing work permits to expire over time, the end result will be hundreds of thousands of young people losing their work authorization and effectively being forced out of the labor market. If DACA workers were to lose their work permits and jobs, the Center for American Progress recently estimated that the cumulative U.S. gross domestic product, or GDP, would be reduced by $433.4 billion over the following 10 years. Each state's economy would also be negatively affected by the loss of workers, as DACA recipients are spread out across the country. For example, CAP's latest estimates show that California—with an estimated 187,972 DACA workers—would suffer a GDP loss of $11.3 billion dollars annually if it were to lose these workers. Likewise, Texas would lose $6.1 billion annually, and North Carolina would lose $1.9 billion annually.
In December 2016, Sens. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Dick Durban (D-IL) introduced a bipartisan bill called the Bar Removal of Individuals Who Dream of Growing Our Economy, or BRIDGE, Act, to protect DACA recipients and DACA-eligible individuals from deportation. This is an important start, and Congress should take up the bill as soon as possible. Nevertheless, while the protections that the bill provides are important, it is still only a half measure and fails to provide a permanent solution for these young people that affords a path to citizenship and allows them to contribute even more to the country they grew up in.
 
Hillary said "We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead" the day after the election but clearly it's only Sanders that's doing this.
You can argue that a) Hillary said this to try to ensure riots wouldn't occur due to Trump winning, and b) that at this stage, all bets are off with giving anyone in the Trump administration an open-mind or a chance to lead. Plus, I think Hillary was hoping for a Trump pivot when she said that.
 
That is not a winning strategy. You don't beat republicans by being nice and comprising the basic principle of not negotiating with racist and evil mother fuckers, you beat them by doing exactly what they've been doing over the years. You oppose them on everything.
For that to be effective, isn't it important that enough people actually understand that they're racist evil motherfuckers? His strategy seems to be more about educating before obstructing, rather than not obstructing. Again, see infrastructure example where he talked about being open to work with him and then later writing a long post about how much of a scam trumps infrastructure plan is. Without first appearing open to working with them on common goals, it's easier to dismiss him as a partisan, which obviously diminishes his potential effectiveness.
 
You can argue that a) Hillary said this to try to ensure riots wouldn't occur due to Trump winning, and b) that at this stage, all bets are off with giving anyone in the Trump administration an open-mind or a chance to lead. Plus, I think Hillary was hoping for a Trump pivot when she said that.
She's attending his inauguration so clearly she isn't that choked up about it.

I'm not that mad at her but y'all have some double standards.
 
Michigan State emailed me to say that my application is so superb that they're almost surely going to accept me even though they just started looking over applications a few days ago.

This is pretty cool :)
 
Hillary said "We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead" the day after the election but clearly it's only Sanders that's doing this.
I think you have to take into consideration the differences in their positions.

The loser of the general election has to acknowledge the winner and respect the win in order to legitimize the election and prevent chaos within the country.

Hillary understood very clearly that she lost and that her duty as the loser was to console and thank her supporters, concede the election, and acknowledge the win. I remind you that this is something Sanders was too narrow-minded to be able to do properly, with no eye on history, no respect for unity, no ability to think broadly of the consequences of his actions.

If you want to stand in the spotlight, then you better be able and willing to sustain all manner of insults and criticism. Sanders is being roasted because he was apparently unable to compromise with Democrats, but now he's rather eager to hear Trump out. What are we supposed to think of such a supposed ally? That when it comes to Hillary Clinton, no amount of progressivism is enough, but when it comes to Trump, a little bit is good enough?

Sanders is apparently now a Democratic US Senator, and as part of the opposition party we expect him to be a decent opposition, and protect the most basic civil rights for us.

Hillary is not a part of the government. Remarkably, even after the election is over and she has no political power, she is still the scapegoat on both sides. When on earth will all these men learn to take responsibility for themselves?
 
I think you have to take into consideration the differences in their positions.

The loser of the general election has to acknowledge the winner and respect the win in order to legitimize the election and prevent chaos within the country.

Hillary understood very clearly that she lost and that her duty as the loser was to console and thank her supporters, concede the election, and acknowledge the win. I remind you that this is something Sanders was too narrow-minded to be able to do properly, with no eye on history, no respect for unity, no ability to think broadly of the consequences of his actions.

If you want to stand in the spotlight, then you better be able and willing to sustain all manner of insults and criticism. Sanders is being roasted because he was apparently unable to compromise with Democrats, but now he's rather eager to hear Trump out. What are we supposed to think of such a supposed ally? That when it comes to Hillary Clinton, no amount of progressivism is enough, but when it comes to Trump, a little bit is good enough?

Sanders is apparently now a Democratic US Senator, and as part of the opposition party we expect him to be a decent opposition, and protect the most basic civil rights for us.

Hillary is not a part of the government. Remarkably, even after the election is over and she has no political power, she is still the scapegoat on both sides. When on earth will all these men learn to take responsibility for themselves?
Where do you get that Sanders was more willing to compromise with Trump than with Democrats? He compromised on them with the platform and then stumped for Hillary all over the midwest. He's always been willing to vote on Democratic legislation (like the ACA). He's shown no real interest in working with Trump in practice. He tore into Trump's infrastructure plan. Why is no amount of teamwork from Sanders good enough?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.