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

[dunie]

I will be pleasantly surprised if France does not come out on the end of hate, frustration and class anger as the US and Britain. It'll be a model for folk to look at, especially given some major hiccups (hijab removal) that's occurred there and in other places. GA just tried to pass a hijab ban, conveniently after Muslim refugees became farmers market vendors around sanctuary spaces here. Pft.

[SnowFire]

On second thought, I'm less sanguine about the French election, at least unless Juppe provides some surprise upset in round 2 of the UMP primary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/francois-fillon-france-election.html?_r=0

Apparently Fillon went from 3rd to 1st in the primaries by promising to be Le Pen lite - he'll defend French cultural values, whatever that means, by bashing immigrants & gays, but won't Frexit the EU and supports free trade.  I guess this is mildly better than Le Pen, but not by a lot.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Mr. Juppé’s more moderate agenda — fewer cuts in the Civil Service and public spending, less accommodation of Russia, friendlier to gay couples — attracted left-leaning voters, which in turn disturbed the right’s traditional electorate.

“It bothered me that so many people on the left voted for him,” Michel Carron, a rural official who attended the rally here, said of Mr. Juppé.

I find comments like these deeply troubling. People who lean to the other side of the political centre are not a breed of space alien bent on destroying the country, whose approval is something to be actively avoided. If your candidate can appeal to more people with his or her non-partisan positive qualities, doesn't that say good things about him or her? Especially true in this case when you will need the support of those voters to defeat the FN.

See also Ashley's post in Misc Links a few days ago.

[Hunter Sopko]

I find comments like these deeply troubling. People who lean to the other side of the political centre are not a breed of space alien bent on destroying the country, whose approval is something to be actively avoided. If your candidate can appeal to more people with his or her non-partisan positive qualities, doesn't that say good things about him or her? Especially true in this case when you will need the support of those voters to defeat the FN.

The problem lately, at least in this country, has been that ideological purity has become the most important aspect of candidacy on the non-moderate left and right. Any compromise to that is anathema to their legitimacy. Reaching out to the other side? Courting voters whom you may not agree with? Doing anything less than strict ideological policy? Sell-out.

Polarization. Dag yo.

[Fenrir]

Fillon is not as bad as Sarkozy, I'd say... He's not as anti-immigration and he tries to unite more than divide. He doesn't want to cancel gay marriage even though this met a lot of opposition.

He's not a petulant angry asshole like Trump or Sarkozy who'd spout inanities to appeal to everybody's base instincts, more of a calm and collected Thatcher worshiping motherfucker. Still bad IMO but yeah.

[Cmdr_King]

So more of an Obama in american terms.

I find comments like these deeply troubling. People who lean to the other side of the political centre are not a breed of space alien bent on destroying the country, whose approval is something to be actively avoided. If your candidate can appeal to more people with his or her non-partisan positive qualities, doesn't that say good things about him or her? Especially true in this case when you will need the support of those voters to defeat the FN.

See also Ashley's post in Misc Links a few days ago.

*Looks at Trump's cabinet and their deep affiliation with literal fucking Nazis*
*Looks at Trump's treating the office of president as leverage to enhance his businesses*
*Looks at Trump's calling meetings with reporters specifically to dress them down*
*Looks at Ryan finally arranging all his dominoes to destroy public health care once and for all*

So Trump's already managed to start a web of businesses to support his regime, put people actively trying to reverse civil rights gains in high office, turn the 1st Amendment into dead paper, and put millions of lives in jeopardy without taking office.  If he wants to go full dictator, executive power has expanded far enough that there's no actual way to stop him outside his party or the military removing him from office, which is just not in the american political DNA.

I'm sure that's not what some segment of those that voted for him were voting FOR, but they absolutely voted for a creature with no concept of human empathy who is almost certainly going to destroy the country.  And it's not really just him: Trump is the logical conclusion of the modern Republican party, not an outlier.  The moderate conservative in american parlance is a Democrat, with those remaining moderates within the Republican party largely abandoning those stances and putting their weight behind the crazy.  Check McCain's record since 2008 for example.

Though of course this is from an american perspective where the main policy difference between our two parties is that one wants to roll back civil rights and privatize EVERYTHING while the other wants to advance civil rights and privatize SOME things.

[Dark Holy Elf]

You quoted me but I'm not sure how what you said contradicts what I said! I agree that Trump and pretty much the entire rest of the current Republican party are garbage. My comment was in reference to the general voting public. I certainly don't accept that ~45-50% of the American electorate is beyond hope.

"I don't trust Juppé because some left-wing people voted for him" is an awful thing to say. So is "I don't trust Clinton because some right-wing people support her". Attitudes like this which celebrate a lack of compromise are incredibly damaging and frankly the Tea Party and Donald Trump are their logical end result.

[Cmdr_King]

I think mostly it's the whole cultural gravity the US has; in our politics there's about a 90% chance that agreeing with a right wing politician really is doing something unconscionably evil, and that aspect of our culture has turned compromise into a dirtier word in other places in the world through pop culture osmosis.  I mean, could be overrating how much all the US's cultural exports impacts things like politics in other places of course, but looking at it from over here it seems pretty plausible.

[Hunter Sopko]

and that aspect of our culture has turned compromise into a dirtier word in other places in the world through pop culture osmosis.

I think the thing that screams this to me is Captain America's "No, you move" speech in Civil War. Out of context, it reaaaaally screams justifying being an asshole. And people have used it as such.

[Dark Holy Elf]

So most of you have probably heard already, but the president-elect of the United States is claiming that 3 million illegal votes were cast in this election (without evidence, of course). Even by his standards this is extremely alarming.

The best-case scenario is that he is both (a) an egomaniac, because he can't handle the fact he lost the purely symbolic vote, and (b) stupid enough to actually believe AND repeat this sort of claim. I'll take "traits I don't want in a president for $200", Alex.

The worst-case scenario is that he is deliberately trying to sow distrust in the American electoral process for future elections. And that is truly terrifying.

[Grefter]

And yet in other news will say that calls for recounts are a scam.

Wake me up in 4 years.  If it happens again just drop me into the ocean.

[Fenrir]

Berlusconi stayed in power a pretty long while in Italy sorry

Also  http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/ayatollah-zika-100-things-media-has-compared-trump-2016-ranked

[Grefter]

Yeah that was my comparison early in the primaries.   Now I just like hold out hope that Trump's control over the media is less because of not directly owning it?  But I don't expect Murdoch to not love Trump.

Maybe new media will save us?  Oh wait I have seen the internet's response to Trump.

[NotMiki]

Here were the headlines about it from two major papers, FWIW.

WaPo:
"Trump makes baseless claim that millions voted illegally for Clinton"

NYT:
"Trump Claims ‘Millions’ Voted Illegally, Citing No Evidence"

[metroid composite]

So...let's talk about this Carrier air conditioning thing, cause I think a lot of places are missing the forest for the trees.

The deal provides 7M in tax breaks over 10 years (so 700k per year) in exchange for 800 jobs (fairly well-paying factory work jobs; let's just estimate $15/hr because $15 is a popular number; some news reports claim salaries went up to $26 per hour).  I've seen people on the left criticizing the deal for one reason or another, but far too many people seem to be missing how this is...way too good to be true.

Like...seriously...this is $875 per job per year.  A typical calendar year has 261 working days, so $3.35 per day, $0.42 cents per hour.


This is such a good deal that it's actively suspicious.  The difference between paying $15/hr in the US, and paying $4/hr in Mexico is much higher than $0.42 cents per hour; what's Carrier's angle here?  700k per year is so low that it literally makes the government money--income taxes on $15/hr alone will probably get those $0.42 cents back.  If it doesn't, there's still sales tax, and the fact that the government doesn't need to provide food stamps or welfare or unemployment insurance to unemployed people.

Like...if the public information we've seen is really all there is to this deal, then Carrier got taken to the cleaners.  There was probably something more going on here.

[Hunter Sopko]

So...let's talk about this Carrier air conditioning thing, cause I think a lot of places are missing the forest for the trees.

The deal provides 7M in tax breaks over 10 years (so 700k per year) in exchange for 800 jobs (fairly well-paying factory work jobs; let's just estimate $15/hr because $15 is a popular number; some news reports claim salaries went up to $26 per hour).  I've seen people on the left criticizing the deal for one reason or another, but far too many people seem to be missing how this is...way too good to be true.

Like...seriously...this is $875 per job per year.  A typical calendar year has 261 working days, so $3.35 per day, $0.42 cents per hour.


This is such a good deal that it's actively suspicious.  The difference between paying $15/hr in the US, and paying $4/hr in Mexico is much higher than $0.42 cents per hour; what's Carrier's angle here?  700k per year is so low that it literally makes the government money--income taxes on $15/hr alone will probably get those $0.42 cents back.  If it doesn't, there's still sales tax, and the fact that the government doesn't need to provide food stamps or welfare or unemployment insurance to unemployed people.

Like...if the public information we've seen is really all there is to this deal, then Carrier got taken to the cleaners.  There was probably something more going on here.

The speculation is along the lines of: Carrier is owned by a company that has extensive DoD contracts. It's possible those contracts were threatened to get them to deal. But it also is worth noting that they didn't save all the jobs at the factory.

[Lady Door]

Here were the headlines about it from two major papers, FWIW.

WaPo:
"Trump makes baseless claim that millions voted illegally for Clinton"

NYT:
"Trump Claims ‘Millions’ Voted Illegally, Citing No Evidence"

Kellyanne Conway gets a little tripped up when directly asked, "Simple question Kellyanne: Is that statement by President-elect Trump true?"

[go to ~5:40]

[SnowFire]

The way to interpret the Carrier deal: corporations already have to spend a fair amount of money on lobbying, both directly and indirectly (indirectly via paying dues to industry organizations & the like).  Even if Carrier lost money on the deal, they basically earned a happy President rather than a pissed one at fairly trivial cost as far as Carrier's parent organization is concerned.  Call those losses the world's most efficient lobbying or something.

Better yet, it sets up a precedent (that is TERRIBLE for rule-of-law based capitalism, but great for you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours Chinese-style crony capitalism).  What happens when Carrier says "uh oh we gotta move those workers" again two years later?  Trump can't very well admit that his original policy failed, no?  They can get another payoff then.  And if Trump hangs around or changes the general tone of how capitalism works, it can happen again in 5 years, in 8...  prepare for capitalism that rewards begging for a handout from the government.

Also screw you Sanders for even suggesting this perverted form of capitalism is a good thing.  This is corporatism, the worst parts of capitalism & socialism combined, and look at, say, Mexico 1930-1990 for an example of what happens to your economy when you do this.

[dunie]

Better yet, it sets up a precedent (that is TERRIBLE for rule-of-law based capitalism, but great for you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours Chinese-style crony capitalism).  What happens when Carrier says "uh oh we gotta move those workers" again two years later?  Trump can't very well admit that his original policy failed, no?  They can get another payoff then.  And if Trump hangs around or changes the general tone of how capitalism works, it can happen again in 5 years, in 8...  prepare for capitalism that rewards begging for a handout from the government.

I had wondered about this. If the incentives are a 10-year contractual plan between the state and Carrier, I'd imagine they couldn't easily leverage. But then I wonder.

Also screw you Sanders for even suggesting this perverted form of capitalism is a good thing.  This is corporatism, the worst parts of capitalism & socialism combined, and look at, say, Mexico 1930-1990 for an example of what happens to your economy when you do this.

I fielded chat about this point. Where did you find Sanders saying this? I may be confusing the point with his more recent WaPo article condemning this specific deal.

[superaielman]

This honest to God feels like having Homer Simpson in office. Winging it doesn't even begin to cover what a horror show this already is. This is one of many reasons why I'm hoping Romney gets Sec State; he is at least a functional adult who can hopefully prevent the worst of Trump's excesses on the national stage. Though..

http://www.wbaltv.com/article/giuliani-romney-no-longer-top-contenders-for-secretary-of-state-sources-say/8462296

Huntsman would fine too. I just want someone in Sec State who can do the fucking job. Petraeus is unacceptable.

Of all the things I didn't expect from this election, walking away with nothing but respect for Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush was high on the list. Also jfc tinyhands, you got owned by Sarah Palin yesterday. *Vomit*

[Sierra]

I'd assumed the offer was mode to Romney in order to neutralize him as a critic (because yes, Romney's stand against Trump was about the only respectable thing any Republican did during this entire shitshow of an election). I've been torn about this--like you, I'd accept his appointment because it would give us a token sane guy in this terrible and terrifying administration, but on the other hand, accepting the position would probably require him to acquiesce in all of Trump's past and inevitably future shadiness, which, based on the creepily subservient air Romney adopted in his public enthusiasm for the appointment, is indeed a prerequisite for anyone who wants a role in the new government. And based on this latest news, I now think it's a strong possibility that the offer was only ever made in order to publicly discredit Romney's former (and potentially future) criticism of Trump, and he took the bait. Trump is a world-class ignoramus, but he does have a terrible talent for using people. There are no friends or allies in his world, only competitors to be crushed or shamed, and sycophants and women to be exploited. He induced a significant opponent to abandon his moral position by offering him power; now that the charge of hypocrisy is prepared should Romney ever criticize him again, why bother honoring the offer?

[Dark Holy Elf]

Agreed that the Sec State appointment is huge, perhaps more than any other. Having someone competent as America's diplomatic face would go a long way to assuring me that Trump isn't going to screw up the politics of the world over the next four years. Most of the other damage Trump might do can hopefully be fixed by a future administration; permanently diminishing America's status in the world and heightening international tensions may not be, and Trump has already shown himself capable of the latter.

So yeah, hope we get someone like Romney or Huntsman, although I do worry that El Cid is correct and this was just a calculated political move. Romney said bad things about Trump once, so he's not worthy of office the way Steve Bannon is, clearly.

[Cotigo]

so is now a good time to point out the "it isn't about sexism" like literally doesn't work when Twump turns around and appoints someone who committed the EXACT SAME CRIME HRC's entire email shit was about TO THE EXACT JOB SHE HAD WHILE SHE WAS ACCUSED OF COMMITTING THE CRIME

anyone who refuses to admit that sexism played a large role during the election season now has a cartoonishly straightforward mallet to get beaten over the head with

EDIT: Good news, at least.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/construction-of-dakota-access-pipeline-will-stop-824491587812

forgive the MSNBC link I've seen it on other sites as well and just can't be arsed to find them atm

[Cmdr_King]

Well it does depend which of the three major narratives was most prominent.

1) Mostly Sexism: A large cohort of normally-Democrat voters stayed home because they didn't 'Trust' Clinton AND a large segment of normally-Republican voters otherwise turned off by Trump voted for "anyone but Clinton".

2) Mostly Racism: A large segment of normally-non-voting electorate came out to support Trump.

3) Mostly the abject failure of the media: Large segments of Democrat voters stayed home because of Clinton's projected 99.99999999% chance to win AND/OR large segments of Republican voters went out for Trump because they genuinely believe Clinton would persecute Christians, take away their guns, let tens of millions of terrorists into the country, etc etc

(To be clear, I think ALL of those things are true, we can just quibble about which one had the greatest impact.  I would toss 4) Republicans have managed to disenfranchise millions of voters in critical states (Wisconsin, North Carolina) that just barely tipped them the election  on the pile as well.)

[Cotigo]

oh yeah obviously it's not the only cause, but it certainly *is* a cause