Election 2016

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sun Sep 27, 2015 7:34 pm

Oh, yeah, no, I, ironically, don't have a chance in Hell. I just am sick of conservative America's islamophobia, and want them to shit themselves by putting up what they fear even more- a satanist/atheist.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:15 pm

Here is Trump's Tax Reform Plan:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

While it seems reasonable there needs to be more detail on how this will be achieve and how the money flow will work. Essentially he needs to do an investor pitch.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:24 pm

What the hell is wrong with the Republican Party right now? I mean, above and beyond their basic problems. The big thing these past two weeks, besides Carson and Jeb! doubling down on the 'goddamn lazy blax want handouts, lol' myths, is the candidates going into an overclass-slobbering policy frenzy.

I can understand in a twisted sort of way Jeb Bush deciding to double-down on plutocracy. He's slipping badly in the polls and is trying to sweeten the deal for his sugar daddies. But I don't understand what's up with Trump. His entire deal was that he was supposed to be a different kind of Republican who was not only going to eject the nasty hordes of brown people but also put a bit more dough in his supporters' paychecks by sticking it to their bosses. Is he also trying to slurp up some money from the plutocratic wing?

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:31 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:But I don't understand what's up with Trump. His entire deal was that he was supposed to be a different kind of Republican who was not only going to eject the nasty hordes of brown people but also put a bit more dough in his supporters' paychecks by sticking it to their bosses. Is he also trying to slurp up some money from the plutocratic wing?

See, when the icky brown people are gone, no one will be mooching off honest hardworking Americans and taxes will not be needed; everyone will be a billionaire if they want it hard enough. It's "keep your government hands off my medicare" all the way down.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:54 pm

That's the snark, but the snark masks a problem deeper than that.

For all of the focus that the GOP has been getting with its (well-deserved) trouble with minorities, what a lot of people on both the left and right have been missing is that the GOP has also been losing ground with non-Southern whites. That 60% of the white vote Romney touted? That number has been driven solely by polarization in the South. The GOP has been badly slipping with whites since 2004; it the trend continues, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio will become completely uncompetitive.

What's more, it's not even the entire South, it's mostly suburban and rural Southern whites. In 12-16 years it won't even make sense to talk about a Solid South, because it'll be a patchwork of urban-centered Democratic strongholds in Texas, Georgia, the Carolinas, Virginia, Florida, and Missouri.

Trump cashing in his chip of economic leftism for some sweet, sweet plutocratic cred is the last thing that he needs in the short-term and the GOP needs in the long-term. His nativism can get him to drive up the margins in the South/Ozarks/Rockies/Appalachia, but it does nothing for him in the Midwest and to a lesser extent the Northeast and West Coast. If he runs a strategy of white supremacy + plutocrat fellatio, it makes his winning the Presidency go from 'extremely difficult' to 'flat-out impossible, even with the tailwind of a recession, scandal, or policy blunder'.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:46 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:What the hell is wrong with the Republican Party right now? I mean, above and beyond their basic problems. The big thing these past two weeks, besides Carson and Jeb! doubling down on the 'goddamn lazy blax want handouts, lol' myths, is the candidates going into an overclass-slobbering policy frenzy.

I can understand in a twisted sort of way Jeb Bush deciding to double-down on plutocracy. He's slipping badly in the polls and is trying to sweeten the deal for his sugar daddies. But I don't understand what's up with Trump. His entire deal was that he was supposed to be a different kind of Republican who was not only going to eject the nasty hordes of brown people but also put a bit more dough in his supporters' paychecks by sticking it to their bosses. Is he also trying to slurp up some money from the plutocratic wing?

Today's Republican Party is made up of plutocrats, evangelist fundamentalist Christians, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and nativists, with large crossovers between some but not all of those circles. The base voters that it appeals to are predominantly older, white, Christian, low-to-middle class and small business owners - that's the electorate. But the party apparatus is dominated by special interests in the form of big business, including a number of millionaires and billionaires with concentrated interests in privatization of government lands and services, defense and medical contracts, farm subsidies, deregulation, etc.

So it's a very schizoid party. The goals of the party apparatus do not neatly align with what the base wants, and they really haven't for a long time. The thing is, you don't actually need huge amounts of people to win elections at the local level - even House and Senate races can be skewed by one particularly loud and vocal segment of the population, if you get them riled up enough and promise them enough things. Rhetoric can work wonder in local races. Especially wedge issues. Simple wedge issues can move small electorates like nothing else - abortion, LBQT rights, firearm ownership, state's rights - basic stuff. That can land you a House seat.

Then you get to Washington, and it's a different ballgame. There are rules; junior Senators and Representatives have minimal powers and have to work their asses off for years or decades before they can maybe get to the positions on key committees and in the House and Senate chamber before they can make real changes. A lot of stuff gets done by compromise, and the heady rhetoric of the campaign gives way to the fact that Senator Bob (R) from Arizona and Senator Grace (D) from New Hampshire have more in common with each other than their constituents. Cooperation is pretty much the only way to get anything done in our government, by design.

So what changed?

Part of it is that election funding laws have changed significantly. With the rise of SuperPACs, a lot of outsize interest is being brought to bear on even bullshit small elections - and remember, John Boehner used to hand out checks from tobacco companies on the floor of the house. These are people to whom kickbacks were an artform, and no fucks were given. Having candidates that they couldn't control with party funds means that the party apparatus as a whole has a lot less influence than before. This meant that a lot of people that otherwise might not have been elected got to Congress, riding a wave of scathing rhetoric. People like Ted Cruz. And these people don't want to play the game, even when it's in the best interests of the party as a whole - because they're answerable to a small but vocal electorate back home that they made toxic promises to.

It sounds terrible to say that the Republican's main problem is that they're campaign platform consists of stuff that the majority of their constituents don't want, or even if their constituents do want it, it's bad for them. But it's maybe worse even than that. Having a plank in the campaign platform to bring back the gold standard is terrible, even if a majority of your people actually want it; having a plank in the campaign platform to cut taxes on the rich is both something they don't want and is terrible for the people of the country as a whole.

The thing is, that's pretty much all the GOP has to offer. All of the major GOP candidates gunning for the nomination except Trump are running variations on the exact same policies. And they are, by and large, the same policies the GOP has been running for decades, Mexican Wall rhetoric notwithstanding: deregulation, privatization, military build-up coupled with an aggressive foreign policy, very conservative (some might say regressive) social initiatives.

That shit looked great in the 1960s. Even today, you'll find people touting one part of it or another - but as I said, the GOP base is schizoid. The people that benefit the most from these conservative policies aren't the base, they're the small class of corporations and billionaires that have found a way to bypass the party apparatus and buy politicians much more directly. It's gotten to the point that the intellectual underpinnings of the party are just another example of corporate graft, led by groups like the Heritage Foundation, which thinks up new ways to justify the same old policies.

Keep that in mind. It's Lee Atwater all over.

Why doesn't the GOP believe in climate change? Because that would mean tougher environmental regulation, which means higher costs to energy companies. That's it. That is the entire justification. A large part of the anti-science campaign of the GOP over the last couple of decades boils down to the Koch brothers not wanting to pay for cleaner air out of their smokestacks.

The GOP rhetoric has just gotten too toxic for the general electorate; the GOP base is shrinking, and has been for some time. The US is weirder, and browner, and the base recognizes that, and is getting more intense - and that's why the guys and gal running for the nomination are looking like cartoon characters. Because they're trying to appeal to the most extreme, vocal parts of the GOP base. And the eventual winner is going to swing back to center. That's not enough to win the general election. The swing-to-the-right during the primary and swing-back-toward-center didn't work for McCain, or Romney. It's not going to work for Bush 3.0.

This is all TL;DR, but if you want to know why Trump is pushing those policies, it's because those are the conservative policies. If you try to push anything different, anything less, you are the enemy and must be destroyed. Whatever justification you give for them, they're basically the same policies as 30, 40, 50 years ago. Bush 3.0 isn't picking up steam despite doubling down on the plutocracy because there's nothing to distinguish them from the others - and he's not even particularly entertaining.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:49 pm

I think that the VSP and establishment hacks are about to get more than they bargained for with Fiorina. She's showing herself to be both A.) an inveterate liar and B.) a wacko-bird. Being one or the other isn't so bad, but both at the same time is deadly, as we can see from her tripling down on obvious lies with Planned Parenthood.

Fuckers were so desperate to take Trump down that they pumped up someone who will case more harm to the brand than good unless she's quickly cut off from plutocrat sugar.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:51 pm

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/t ... ase-214203

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 8:11 pm

Ancient History wrote:http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/t ... ase-214203

That makes sense. The easiest way to support an issue is to bribe the people who oppose it.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:38 am

Ancient History wrote:http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/t ... ase-214203

While this is something I already knew about the bait and switch I am surprised that he is actually talking about it.

Also I am curious about why Lago is upset with Trump's appeal to plutocrats. I thought he was of the opinion that his rhetoric did not matter whether he was saying sane things or not.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 1:14 am

I'm not upset. I'm actually extremely thrilled that Trump has shed even the veneer of populism and is going full-on royalist. I'm just confused. I had always thought of him crazy, but crazy like a fox. That is, he uses a combination of white supremacy to lock down Southerners and Appalachians and uses economic populism to woo Midwestern and Northeastern whites.

Him deciding to abandon that plank of the platform makes his chances go from 'wanna gamble on how much appeal white privilege really has outside the South when economic self-interest is thrown in?' to 'no chance unless Obama, Clinton, and Sanders get caught fucking dead children'. He's either doing this because he's just regular-crazy or he's desperate for some plutocratic sugar.

It's not going to work out too well for Trump, though. The VSP have already turned on his tax plan with a surprising amount of venom. Well, surprising if the VSP being the rimjob providers of their corporate paymasters is a somehow a surprise to you; watch them predictably and hypocritically give Rubio a pass for proposing to cut capital gains taxes to near-zero while blasting Trump's tax plan as impractical. Much like they did for that wall-socket humper Paul Ryan.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:02 am

MGuy wrote:Also I am curious about why Lago is upset with Trump's appeal to plutocrats. I thought he was of the opinion that his rhetoric did not matter whether he was saying sane things or not.

Trump was an interesting phenomenon specifically because he wasn't John "The Maverick" McCain. He was an actual anti-establishment candidate, wearing the base's racism as a badge of honor while rejecting the plutocratic planks of the party in favor of economic populism. Note that the establishment candidates are doing the exact opposite of that, promising to suck plutocrat cock more than ever while rejecting the base's racism in the name of electability.

Trump's swing towards fellatio of the plutocrats is not surprising. The moment he signed the RNC pledge, you should have realized that he had succeeded in scaring the wealthy owners of the Republican party into giving him whatever the fuck he was trying to extort from them. He has no particular reason to keep threatening their interests, so now he's running as the racist establishment candidate that the plutocrats can (if forced to) get behind. This is boring, and much less of an existential threat to the Republican party.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:37 am

DSMatticus wrote:He has no particular reason to keep threatening their interests, so now he's running as the racist establishment candidate that the plutocrats can (if forced to) get behind.

I don't think that the GOP plutocrats will ever get behind Trump no matter how much he tailors his platform to directly enrich them should he win. He's an unacceptable danger to their short-term and long-term interests in a way that a Carson or Fiorina (also hopeless candidates) wouldn't be.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:01 am

Trump will never be the Koch Empire's first pick, but if he powers through the primary (presumably by threatening to run third party if the unpledged delegates don't respect the popular vote, and then hoping to win the popular vote on good ol' racism; presumably an arrangement he has already made with the RNC given his pledge to not run third party) then adopting a plutocratic plank makes him acceptable in the general election. If he ran a populist campaign in the general, the Republicans would genuinely throw it to Hillary so they could play four more years of obstructionism instead of four years telling their own White House to go fuck itself in front of the entire country. Imagine how that would look.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 3:03 pm

The latest temporary stumble/media trend is the recent mass shooting in Oregon. Which is an excuse for the GOP candidates to stand firm on American gun ownership.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/politics/ ... f-happens/

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 5:35 pm

"We're in a difficult time in our country and I don't think more government is necessarily the answer to this. I think we need to reconnect ourselves with everybody else. It's very sad to see. I resist the notion," Bush said at a campaign stop in South Carolina. "I had this challenge as governor, 'cause we had, look, stuff happens, there's always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something and it's not necessarily the right thing to do."

What a jackass.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 5:49 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
"We're in a difficult time in our country and I don't think more government is necessarily the answer to this. I think we need to reconnect ourselves with everybody else. It's very sad to see. I resist the notion," Bush said at a campaign stop in South Carolina. "I had this challenge as governor, 'cause we had, look, stuff happens, there's always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something and it's not necessarily the right thing to do."
What a jackass.

He's completely right, though.

Knee-jerk responses to tragedies tend to have horrible results.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 5:57 pm

At the same time, though, it's an obvious deflection of a bigger issue at a time when it hits the public consciousness and could be pushed. This isn't the first mass shooting; hell, gun violence in the US isn't even rare. Even if you don't want to rush out any legislation, at least acknowledge it's an issue and start a dialogue on whether it requires legislation, and if so what.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 8:17 pm

yeah, we basically have a mass shooting* every day. If we actually managed to get through the end of the year with no more mass shootings, we'd still have lost an average of of just over a person per day to them.

*defined as a shooting in which four or more people are at least wounded

TarkisFlux · Post by **TarkisFlux** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 9:48 pm

hyzmarca wrote:
Lago PARANOIA wrote:
"We're in a difficult time in our country and I don't think more government is necessarily the answer to this. I think we need to reconnect ourselves with everybody else. It's very sad to see. I resist the notion," Bush said at a campaign stop in South Carolina. "I had this challenge as governor, 'cause we had, look, stuff happens, there's always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something and it's not necessarily the right thing to do."
What a jackass.
He's completely right, though.

Knee-jerk responses to tragedies tend to have horrible results.

Yes, like the Patriot act. This is just a tragedy they're willing to let go to waste because they can't use it in a way they like.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:00 pm

You could always go full Sibyl System. Use give everyone a crime risk score based on known risk factors in public databases. Those with a score that's over a certain threshold are preemptively imprisoned as latent criminals.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:02 pm

All white people would live in prisons. You might as well call them gated communities and...oh.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 11:41 pm

hyzmarca wrote:You could always go full Sibyl System. Use give everyone a crime risk score based on known risk factors in public databases. Those with a score that's over a certain threshold are preemptively imprisoned as latent criminals.

Seriously? Fuck you. Deciding to limit gun ownership is the same as locking up innocent people to you? Are minimum wage laws enslaving the rich too?

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:36 am

Kaelik wrote:
hyzmarca wrote:You could always go full Sibyl System. Use give everyone a crime risk score based on known risk factors in public databases. Those with a score that's over a certain threshold are preemptively imprisoned as latent criminals.
Seriously? Fuck you. Deciding to limit gun ownership is the same as locking up innocent people to you? Are minimum wage laws enslaving the rich too?

Not innocent people, bad people. It's tautological that if you remove of all violent people from society then there will be no violence. The disease isn't too many guns. The disease is too many people who think that violence is a good idea. Getting rid of them isn't particularly easy, but neither is gun control.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:11 am

hyzmarca wrote:The disease is too many people who think that violence is a good idea. Getting rid of them isn't particularly easy, but neither is gun control.

No, actually gun control is really easy. We managed it here. In Australia. For decades. We had an easy and beneficial increase in gun control under a conservative government that was otherwise massively incompetent to the point of being officially branded by the IMF as Australia's most wasteful government in history (you know, despite being, again, conservative and thus somewhat in line with their traditionally preferred policies).

If incompetents like Australia and John "What, really THAT guy is your Prime Minister?" Howard can do gun control, then gun control IS fucking easy.

Edit: Seriously THIS GUY basically ended mass shootings on a whole continent. And you think it was HARD?