Is there a politics thread? Guess I'm making one

[dunie]

"Frenemies" is a legit thing; we all cash in on our social networks at some point and in some capacity.

[SnowFire]

dunie, the point is which capacity.  If Bill Clinton asked the Bushes if they can attend a charity gala for AIDS in Africa, and (unspokenly) to conduct the event in a non-political, non-headline grabbing manner, the answer is probably yes.  If Clinton were to ask the Bushes to endorse Obama's jobs plan, or the Bushes had asked for a job/internship for a relative in the State Department back when Hillary ran it, the answer would be a shocked look then no.  When people toss around these "oh the Bushes and Clintons are totally friends" line, they're usually heavily implying the 2nd version, which is pretty nonsensical.

mc, I pretty much agree with Elf.  There are a few people I know who I'm on perfectly cordial terms with whose politics are diametrically opposed to mine - think "have Rush Limbaugh books lying around the house."

[dunie]

For the record, I wouldn't stand behind the 2nd version, and I agree overall with Elf.

But I would, indeed, cut off who I call a "friend" personally if there were some serious rifts in ideologies (tax, maybe not...abortion, yes) that meant we could only socialize around one thing. They'd just be an associate. Hence why I tossed in the "frenemies" element, which I've always understood as a relationship where you know there will be friction, but you need for whatever reason (to be a better self, access, political maturity, etc.) My point is that beyond this Bush/Clinton pair ya'll are speaking on, I would never put it passed someone to epitomize the idea of a friend superficially.

[Luther Lansfeld]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/24/french-police-make-woman-remove-burkini-on-nice-beach

This is utterly infuriating to me. It is bullshit to tell women how they should dress on a public beach because of strange devotion to secular principles / fear of terrorism (?)

[dunie]

She was very brave.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/burkini-ban-french-france-court-suspends-rule-law-forbidding-swimwear-worn-muslim-women-seriously-a7211396.html a positive follow up here, saw this also on fb

[NotMiki]

France has a lot of soul searching to do here.  Wish I could say I were more optimistic about it - but the international outrage is comforting.

[Luther Lansfeld]

why did i read the comments on that thread

save me

[NotMiki]

why did i read the comments on that thread

save me

On the issue of people on the internet who are awful, I've been distraught over the abuse Leslie Jones has been absorbing, particularly that in the year two thousand and sixteen a major presidential candidate has, like, two degrees of separation from the racist, sexist shits who hacked her website.  Trump => Breitbart/Bannon => Milo Yalikefuckimgonnawastebraincellsrememberingyourname => the shits.  Ok maybe 2.5 degrees?  Anyway, close.  Very close.

So I was heartened to hear that Clinton was going to address this particular strain of human waste with her speech yesterday.  And I read it, and it soothed my soul, a little.  And I would recommend you do the same.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/transcript-of-hillary-s-reno-speech

[metroid composite]

I think this is the most accurate headline of the election.

Donald Trump Doesn't Have an Immigration Policy.  He Has Adjectives and Adverbs.

[superaielman]

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-08-30/story/northeast-florida-voters-kick-controversial-state-attorney-angela-corey


Good fucking riddance.

[NotMiki]

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-08-30/story/northeast-florida-voters-kick-controversial-state-attorney-angela-corey


Good fucking riddance.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2016/05/campaign_manager_for_angela_corey_helped_close_fla_state_attorney_election/

This is after Corey's campaign used dirty tricks to prevent Democrats from voting against her.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/31/angela_corey_fired_voters_kick_florida_prosecutor_out.html

Some background on why she is The Worst.

[NotMiki]

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/2/12761756/clinton-foundation-passport-north-korea

This, frankly, infuriating.  Journalistic malpractice.  There have been a lot of "there's smoke so there must be fire" articles regarding the Clinton Foundation, despite the fact that, y'know, we have 30,000 of her personal emails, so if there's fire we should know by now.  But the NY Times piece at issue is the worst I've seen.

So Bill Clinton, ex-president, made an emergency trip to North Korea, to negotiate the release of two US journalists, and his Clinton Foundation aides who were accompanying him asked the State Department for help. According to the New York Times this raises "new questions about whether people tied to the Clinton Foundation received special access at the department."

And this is scandalous why? They're on an unofficial diplomatic mission for the United States to rescue United States citizens from North Korea, for God's sake! If the State department ISN'T bending over backwards for them, something is deeply wrong.

[Excal]

Hey, this is almost as bad as that time Shillary was on the Board of Directors for a company that is making deals with ISIS!

Detractors would like you to think that it matters that she was last on the board back in 1992, and ISIS probably didn't exist in any form we care about until 2014, but her reptillian overlords/handlers would clearly have known how that would work out because it's all a part of their masterplan!!!

[Hunter Sopko]

I've actually encountered those people in their serious form, except it's Saddam Hussein rather than ISIS.

The timeline is more that the company worked with the CIA during the Iran-Iraq War in the late-80's, then stopped in the 90's once Hussein heel-turned.

Either way, THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW!!!!!! Except, you know, the whole thing is on her Wikipedia page.

COVERUP!

[metroid composite]

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/2/12761756/clinton-foundation-passport-north-korea

This, frankly, infuriating.  Journalistic malpractice.  There have been a lot of "there's smoke so there must be fire" articles regarding the Clinton Foundation, despite the fact that, y'know, we have 30,000 of her personal emails, so if there's fire we should know by now.  But the NY Times piece at issue is the worst I've seen.

So Bill Clinton, ex-president, made an emergency trip to North Korea, to negotiate the release of two US journalists, and his Clinton Foundation aides who were accompanying him asked the State Department for help. According to the New York Times this raises "new questions about whether people tied to the Clinton Foundation received special access at the department."

And this is scandalous why? They're on an unofficial diplomatic mission for the United States to rescue United States citizens from North Korea, for God's sake! If the State department ISN'T bending over backwards for them, something is deeply wrong.

If I recall this story correctly, the state department said "no" anyway.  So like...hypothetically if they had said yes, there could be some argument for impropriety, or whether it was worth-it to save hostages.  But they didn't.

I mean, it's not even like Hillary is spotless.  The FBI was quite critical of how she handled emails, and said that while they weren't pressing criminal charges, if she still worked at the state department she might face less clearance or a sanction like that.  The speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs would have been illegal if she had announced her bid for President, but she conveniently only "decided to run" several months later.

Like...if you want to critique Hillary, there's certainly some substance there.  Which makes the attacks on the Clinton Foundation very strange.  You mean the foundation that provides AIDS medicine to kids in Africa, and which has never paid money to Bill or Hillary?  A completely transparent charity?  A charity with one of the highest ratings in terms of how much of its donation money goes directly to aid?  That Clinton Foundation?  Donald Trump's favourite charity (or at least his largest charitable donation ever)?  That Clinton Foundation?

Really?

[NotMiki]

I mean, it's not even like Hillary is spotless.  The FBI was quite critical of how she handled emails, and said that while they weren't pressing criminal charges, if she still worked at the state department she might face less clearance or a sanction like that.  The speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs would have been illegal if she had announced her bid for President, but she conveniently only "decided to run" several months later.

I can't say either of those facts particularly concerns me - it's laughable that Clinton would have her clearance reduced, James Comey's star turn notwithstanding - she was a political appointee.  People can get upset about how cabinet heads get special treatment JUST because the president specifically appoints them but the thinkpieces comparing them to low-level career diplomats and say they would have been treated the same are specious.  And when you say "if the facts had been different then what she did would have been criminal" I mean...the facts AREN'T different.  I doubt you will find a single political candidate that has not timed their official campaign announcement for election law oversight purposes.  That practice is ubiquitous, bipartisan, and the FEC has not done a thing about it.

[Shale]

I mean, the FEC also didn't do anything about Trump soliciting campaign contributions in the UK, so they're sure as hell not going to nail anybody for a spirit-of-the-law violation.

It's another way this whole garbage fire reminds me of Rob Ford - Trump can blatantly break whatever laws he finds inconvenient and it's just the wacky candidate being wacky.

[SnowFire]

Not to mention that this is only questionably against the spirit of the law!  If young Dick or Jane wants to run for President from age 8, are they never allowed to do anything forbidden in election season their entire life, because hey, everyone knows they really intend to run for political office eventually?  I say no, these restrictions are time-limited for a reason, and if anything candidates declare way SOONER than "expected" to by the law these days.  It isn't like these activities are immoral no matter when they occur.

More generally, I still don't think the speeches at Goldman Sachs were a big deal to begin with.  *If* it was actually a bribe, then yes, it's bad.  But it wasn't a bribe, it was just that celebrity speakers get ludicrous appearance fees that make normal people squirm.  Been linked before, but see:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen
Enertainers & the like get paid ludicrous amounts for speaking fees, too.  But it doesn't seem clear what kind of nefarious purpose they're getting bribed for, so it seems reasonable to assume that celebrity politicans are getting a similar deal.  It really is just for "prestige" purposes where executives can brag about having met high muckety-mucks.  Which is frustrating since I can imagine way better purposes to put money like that too, but isn't corrupt, just stupid (for the payers, not the payees).

[NotMiki]

It's another way this whole garbage fire reminds me of Rob Ford - Trump can blatantly break whatever laws he finds inconvenient and it's just the wacky candidate being wacky.

I didn't mention it yesterday because I should probably keep a cap on the number of posts I make complaining about how the press covers Clinton as opposed to Trump, but this really had me tearing out my hair.  So Trump's foundation made a political contribution to Florida's AG in what seems to be a blatant quid pro quo to induce her to drop a lawsuit against Trump University - which she did - then actively covered it up, got caught, and got fined by the IRS for it.  Why the fuck isn't this headline news?  It doesn't even seem to have made the front page on the New York Times, despite the fact that the press seemingly loves duality - talking about Trump's Foundations' problems after a news cycle on the Clinton Foundation is a gimme.  A meatball down the middle of the plate.

But it doesn't seem clear what kind of nefarious purpose they're getting bribed for, so it seems reasonable to assume that celebrity politicans are getting a similar deal.  It really is just for "prestige" purposes where executives can brag about having met high muckety-mucks.  Which is frustrating since I can imagine way better purposes to put money like that too, but isn't corrupt, just stupid (for the payers, not the payees).

Yeah people have this weird idea that rich people are smart, and especially that rich people are smart about money.  Despite all evidence to the contrary.  Conspicuous consumption is a thing, and it expresses itself in speaking fees as well as yachts.  Relatedly, I used to work for a science organization that gave out fancy certificates to members who paid a small additional fee.  The certificates didn't mean anything, other than to signify membership in a pay-to-join organization.  Certain rich people just love to collect fancy certificates to put on the wall, though, so in my half a year there I ended up processing certificates for a few people whose names I knew from the news.

[Cotigo]

https://www.facebook.com/democracynow/videos/10154446432358279/?pnref=story

Why the fuck are we still talking about Donald Trump's visit to Mexico and his oh so predictable heel face turn upon returning when shit like this is happening?

I wish I knew what to do other than share the video and sit at my computer writing but I fucking don't. This is a goddamn disgrace.

[superaielman]

I have seen a little coverage on media sites but not a ton. Re second point: because news media is terrible and is about ratings rather than actually what matters.

[NotMiki]

Yeah.  All the big new entities are based on the coasts.  Injustices in flyover country might as well be in a foreign nation.

[superaielman]

Also, watching Sean Hannity melt down in embarrassing fashion and repeatedly get owned by Jonah Goldberg is great.

[dunie]

https://www.facebook.com/democracynow/videos/10154446432358279/?pnref=story

Why the fuck are we still talking about Donald Trump's visit to Mexico and his oh so predictable heel face turn upon returning when shit like this is happening?

I wish I knew what to do other than share the video and sit at my computer writing but I fucking don't. This is a goddamn disgrace.

I don't mean to be callous, but you could sit at the computer and figure out a way? See what your nearby ACLU has going on in relation to it. E-mail them or call, they're pretty quick to respond? Call your local representative and local news stations? Ring the alarm with other people on social media? Figure out the nearest environmental/social justice group near you? Crowdsource? Keep telling your friends like it seems you have been? Check in to what protesters did for the Keystone Pipeline? Read the fine print of donors to protest groups? Thanks for putting that news in this thread!

edit* not sure why I keep getting 405 error code

[metroid composite]

I mean, President Obama has now called a halt to the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.  So the protests and news about dog attacks seemed to have had an effect.

I'm still kinda miffed that out of the four presidential candidates, the only presidential candidate who visited the DAP protests was Jill Stein.  (Of course, her goal was to get arrested, so she was spray painting the equipment :S).  I get that Johnson is probably for the pipeline cause his whole platform is anti-regulation.  And it's not like I expected Trump to have any principles whatsoever.  But it would've be nice if Hillary had taken notice....