2018 Democrats thread

[Soxbadger]

Polls are often crap on those major policy questions. When you're asked a question on the phone - would you like to see every young person get an education for free? - it's generally THOUGHT OF as a good idea, but when people actual vote, and actually think about HOW we can achieve something like that, the position changes because the question then becomes, well wait, who is paying for it? It's coming out of my pocket? Oh, then never mind.

 

Jenks,

 

Not sure if you saw the whole argument, but what you just said is similar (maybe more specific) to what ive been trying to explain.

[StrangeSox]

SF will wipe thousands of marijuana convictions off the books

 

San Francisco will retroactively apply California’s marijuana-legalization laws to past criminal cases, District Attorney George Gascón said Wednesday — expunging or reducing misdemeanor and felony convictions going back decades.

 

The move will affect thousands of people whose marijuana convictions brand them with criminal histories that can hurt chances for finding jobs and obtaining some government benefits.

 

Proposition 64, which state voters passed in November 2016, legalized the recreational use of marijuana in California for those 21 and older and permitted the possession up to one ounce of cannabis. The legislation also allows those with past marijuana convictions that would have been lesser crimes — or no crime at all — under Prop. 64 to petition a court to recall or dismiss their cases.

 

Rather than leaving it up to individuals to petition the courts — which is time consuming and can cost hundreds of dollars in attorney fees — Gascón said San Francisco prosecutors will review and wipe out convictions en masse.

 

This is really good. Decriminalization and legalization are good, but they don't directly help the people already sitting in prison.

[illinilaw08]

SF will wipe thousands of marijuana convictions off the books

 

 

 

This is really good. Decriminalization and legalization are good, but they don't directly help the people already sitting in prison.

 

Or the people with a marijuana conviction keeping them from finding gainful employment. Agreed that this is really good.

[caulfield12]

(IMO) The election was lost because the "polls" made them so confident that instead of focusing on the 4-5 states they needed to get to 270, they instead started trying to make states like NC and Texas competitive. Its not that Clinton didnt feel comfortable speaking to the midwest (shes from the midwest), its that she didnt even step foot in the midwest. I dont think she ever actually stepped foot into Wisconsin or Michigan (not 100% sure on Michigan).

 

This is from Clinton herself:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-cli...happened-2017-9

 

Ironically, the one with best political instincts of his generation, Bill Clinton, was marginalized by Mook and basically ignored on the late-emerging Michigan, WI and PA issue.

[Dam8610]

So Trump is committing treason and the House is investigating the FBI and DOJ? Why?

[caulfield12]

So Trump is committing treason and the House is investigating the FBI and DOJ? Why?

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/31/politics/str...tter/index.html

50% of the basis for their attacks (the text messages between the two "lovers") has now been wiped out.

 

Emails obtained by CNN show the FBI agent at the center of a Capitol Hill storm played a key role in a controversial FBI decision that upended Hillary Clinton's campaign just days before the 2016 election: the letter to Congress by then-FBI Director James Comey announcing the bureau was investigating newly discovered Clinton emails.

 

To answer your question: Because our systems of "checks and balances" and "accepted norms since 1787" is breaking down, lol. Because the 30% of Americans who consume Fox News will eat it up, and draw higher ratings, for another. Anything to obfuscate or draw attention away from Trump/Russia/his personal finances/his family.

 

 

Since we're debating "pragmatism" here (the last 2-3 pages of thread):

Let's say Joe Kennedy was somehow the nominee for President in 2020 at age 40. Kennedys have always been moderates/centrists, would liberal women (or members of #metoo) actually not vote because of that family's history with women and the "crony" influence (similar to the Trumps today) they've been able to wield since the first Joe Kennedy a century ago?

 

Does it have to be Liz Warren, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris (at least as the VP) to motivate the progressive side of the party?

Edited February 1, 2018 by caulfield12

[Dam8610]

Because our systems of "checks and balances" and "accepted norms since 1787" is breaking down, lol. Because the 30% of Americans who consume Fox News will eat it up, and draw higher ratings, for another.

 

Anything to obfuscate or draw attention away from Trump/Russia/his personal finances/his family.

 

 

Since we're debating "pragmatism" here:

Let's say Joe Kennedy was somehow the nominee for President in 2020 at age 40. Kennedys have always been moderates/centrists, would liberal women (or members of #metoo) actually not vote because of that family's history with women and the "crony" influence (similar to the Trumps today) they've been able to wield since the first Joe Kennedy a century ago?

 

Does it have to be Liz Warren, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris (at least as the VP) to motivate the progressive side of the party?

 

I can't speak for "progressives" as a whole, but for me, his record on issues would matter. How has he voted, what bills has he sponsored, etc., and how does that align with his platform. I haven't looked into that at this point, but I will say that if his record looks like that of a neoliberal, which is what most consider to be "centrist/moderate", I would not personally support him and I would not vote for him as president. Now, I happen to live in Indiana, so I have the "advantage" of knowing that my vote for president won't count no matter how I cast it, so in that race I don't have to take the "lesser of two evils" approach and I'm essentially free to vote in a way that lets my progressive ideology be known. That said, I'm tired of choosing the lesser of two evils, I'd like to see candidates that are actually going to govern for the people instead of the special interests.

[caulfield12]

I can't speak for "progressives" as a whole, but for me, his record on issues would matter. How has he voted, what bills has he sponsored, etc., and how does that align with his platform. I haven't looked into that at this point, but I will say that if his record looks like that of a neoliberal, which is what most consider to be "centrist/moderate", I would not personally support him and I would not vote for him as president. Now, I happen to live in Indiana, so I have the "advantage" of knowing that my vote for president won't count no matter how I cast it, so in that race I don't have to take the "lesser of two evils" approach and I'm essentially free to vote in a way that lets my progressive ideology be known. That said, I'm tired of choosing the lesser of two evils, I'd like to see candidates that are actually going to govern for the people instead of the special interests.

 

 

The interesting thing to watch will be how much Biden/Sanders/Warren try to hold onto leadership in the Democratic Party, or if they're willing to "anoint" a younger heir.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Kennedy_III

 

You can decide for yourself.

 

His grandfather went from one of the most conservative Dems in the 1960's to the evolution of the 1968 populist campaign, which was anti-war, pro-migrant workers, pro-Appalachia, pro-Native American, as liberal as you could possibly get for that time.

 

The only thing like it since has been John Edwards' attempts to copy it, which of course came across as inauthentic.

 

Paul Wellstone and perhaps Sherrod Brown would be a couple of other comparisons. He has been cast as a "grittier," put the work in, down in the trenches Kennedy, compared to JFK Jr. or RFK Jr., for example.

[Heads22]

Bernie Sanders lost because he couldn't win over black Democrats specifically.

 

I still think a lot of people would not embrace him until he actually joined the party.

[greg775]

SANDERS didn't have the name recognition nor had the corporate media behind him. We also know that Clinton literally funded the DNC herself and had all of the strings of power.

Exactly. Bernie had no chance because accept it or not, the DNC and Hollywood and everybody on the liberal side wanted to coronate Hillary President because it was her time, her turn, her career achievement award. Bernie may have had a tough time winning it all because of the Socialist tag but he wasn't given a fair shake.

In a way I don't blame the Democrats. You'd think anybody, any candidate, could beat Trump. So give Hillary her achievement award and let her claim what was rightfully hers in terms of coronation.

I think Bernie had time to win more people over and I do think Bernie would have beaten Trump. He had a lot of momentum with the youngsters who loved him. Just as Trump mania was understated in the media, so was Bernie mania. I remember Hillary spoke in KC before the election and they couldn't fill bartle Hall. Half full maybe. Meanwhile Bernie came to Lawrence and the building was sold out and lines around the block. DNC didn't give Bernie a chance to sweep the country with Bernie mania cause of the aforementioned reasons.

 

[caulfield12]

Pennsylvania GOP leader defies court order on gerrymandering

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/01/politics/pen...ring/index.html

 

 

Washington (CNN)A top Pennsylvania state Senate Republican is refusing to follow a court order requiring lawmakers to turn over data that would redraw the state's congressional map.

 

In a letter to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which struck down the map, state Sen. Joe Scarnati on Wednesday called the order unconstitutional and said he would not comply.

 

"In light of the unconstitutionality of the court's orders and the court's plain intent to usurp the General Assembly's constitutionally delegated role of drafting Pennsylvania's congressional district plan, Senator Scarnati will not be turning over any data identified in the court's orders," wrote Brian Paszamant, Scarnati's attorney.

[GoSox05]

@ryangrim

 

NEWS: SEIU confirms it is breaking with Lipinski and endorsing his challenger @Marie4Congress. Announcement later today.

 

Lipinski's wall is labor support, and it's crumbling. Teachers could break with him this weekend.

 

 

Dan Lipinski is in trouble.

[StrangeSox]

Dan Lipinski is in trouble.

 

Gillibrand's coming in for Newman, too. Planned Parenthood is supposedly going to endorse soon. EMILY'S List backed her, too. My wife's cousin did a meet-and-greet for her at their house a little while back. There's a lot of progressive energy behind her, hopefully it's enough.

[SoxFan2003]

Dan Lipinski is in trouble.

 

I'll be voting for Newman. However, I still think she's an underdog in this race. She's got to get her name recognition up and (unfortunately) will need to go ultra negative against Lipinski tying him to Trump.

 

Some people I talk to think she is setting herself up for a 2020 win.

Edited February 2, 2018 by SoxFan2003

[GoSox05]

Yeah, she is probably still an underdog in the race, but I think it will be close.

 

 

Little fun fact, the Republican running for this seat is a Neo-Nazi who denies the holocaust. I think he has tried to run before. The Republican party normally refuses to be associated with him.

[Balta1701]

Exactly. Bernie had no chance because accept it or not, the DNC and Hollywood and everybody on the liberal side wanted to coronate Hillary President because it was her time, her turn, her career achievement award. Bernie may have had a tough time winning it all because of the Socialist tag but he wasn't given a fair shake.

In a way I don't blame the Democrats. You'd think anybody, any candidate, could beat Trump. So give Hillary her achievement award and let her claim what was rightfully hers in terms of coronation.

I think Bernie had time to win more people over and I do think Bernie would have beaten Trump. He had a lot of momentum with the youngsters who loved him. Just as Trump mania was understated in the media, so was Bernie mania. I remember Hillary spoke in KC before the election and they couldn't fill bartle Hall. Half full maybe. Meanwhile Bernie came to Lawrence and the building was sold out and lines around the block. DNC didn't give Bernie a chance to sweep the country with Bernie mania cause of the aforementioned reasons.

He clearly wasn't given a fair shake. After all, take a look at who voted for him - it was all Obama's voters in anyone who deserves to count.

[StrangeSox]

An Updated Lead-Crime Roundup for 2018

 

A few weeks ago I promised an updated roundup of evidence about the link between lead poisoning and violent crime. Here it is.

 

It’s in three parts. Part 1 is the basic story. Part 2 is various bits of commentary explaining different details and predictions of the hypothesis. Part 3 is a roundup of all the lead-crime studies that have been done since 2012 that I’m aware of.

 

Nothing as complex as "national crime rates" is going to be monocausal, but man spraying lead all over the place for years was such a stupid idea.

[greg775]

He clearly wasn't given a fair shake. After all, take a look at who voted for him - it was all Obama's voters in anyone who deserves to count.

I don't understand why African Americans despised Bernie. Makes little sense. His message wasn't offensive in any way. I feel like Bernie mania would have usurped Trump mania in the long haul.

[Balta1701]

I don't understand why African Americans despised Bernie. Makes little sense. His message wasn't offensive in any way. I feel like Bernie mania would have usurped Trump mania in the long haul.

Because he was just like you. They're getting gunned down in the streets and you wonder why they're so mad. After all, if you went out and shot a bunch of dogs, other dogs wouldn't be mad at you. They should go sit around and be happy that you've been nice to them once or twice and not complain. Here have a biscuit.

[greg775]

Because he was just like you. They're getting gunned down in the streets and you wonder why they're so mad. After all, if you went out and shot a bunch of dogs, other dogs wouldn't be mad at you. They should go sit around and be happy that you've been nice to them once or twice and not complain. Here have a biscuit.

That's a good way to shut me up. Write a post I don't understand. Not sure of your point. I thought Bernie's policies would be good as far as social issues which is usually a Democrat strength.

[Heads22]

That's a good way to shut me up. Write a post I don't understand. Not sure of your point. I thought Bernie's policies would be good as far as social issues which is usually a Democrat strength.

 

You liked Bernie, so when he didn't get the bid, you didn't vote for the person closest in views to him that had a chance to win, correct?

[greg775]

You liked Bernie, so when he didn't get the bid, you didn't vote for the person closest in views to him that had a chance to win, correct?

Correct.

[Heads22]

Correct.

 

So that means you didn't care about the policies. Why should any of us care what you have to say about them if you didn't care enough to vote based on them?

[greg775]

So that means you didn't care about the policies. Why should any of us care what you have to say about them if you didn't care enough to vote based on them?

I did. I just didn't approve of Ms. Clinton. Not a fan.

[Dam8610]

So that means you didn't care about the policies. Why should any of us care what you have to say about them if you didn't care enough to vote based on them?

 

That's not necessarily what that means. Hillary Clinton had a long history of changing her views for political expediency. She parroted Bernie's talking points because she thought it was what people wanted to hear, but her neoliberal side still showed through in the presidential debates with ideas like corporate tax cuts, corporate repatriation tax holiday, and support of the export-import bank as a few examples. Those were not the policy positions the DNC purported to support at the convention to attempt to win over Bernie supporters, and they're proof that putting her in office would've led to her abandoning every progressive position she supposedly espoused on the campaign trail to "get things done" with the Republicans, likely all things that progressives would've hated. Granted, Trump is worse, but fortunately he's mostly being held in check by controversy thus far, and Trump being worse doesn't mean Clinton wouldn't have gone back on her campaign promises the moment it became politically expedient. Not voting for Hillary after supporting Bernie is understandable, because Bernie and Hillary are in completely different areas of the political spectrum, even if they both ran as Democrats. I voted for Bernie for president in the general, mostly because I live in Indiana and Hillary never stood a chance of winning here, so I chose to speak to the data analysts through my vote. Had I lived in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc., I would've voted for Hillary, because ultimately she was the lesser of two evils, but make no mistake that from a progressive perspective, she was an evil, and Bernie's supporters had no real candidate to vote for that would represent their interests in the general.