2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[Ksandra]

stealing Bernie's rigged economy rhetoric, repeatedly calling Hillary a murderer, and suffusing the text with misinformation and lies while offering zero substantive details as to how one is going to bring manufacturing jobs back or how retarding globalization will help the economy grow is what qualifies as a pretty good speech now eh

Considering most speeches don't really go into those things, sure.

Personally, I think he's right to attack Clinton on the NAFTA stuff, and I hope it causes her to come up with a solid plan to counter it.

Only thing I've read regarding it is her saying it needs "fixing." If someone has more details she's given I'd be happy to hear it. It's probably one of the very few things I really really don't like about Clinton.

[Andalusian girls]

it's certainly a wise line of attack given the economic illiteracy of the populace and how yelling dey took our jerbs has been an effective rallying cry for demagogic politicians since the Roman Republic.

but i snark too quickly. what issues do you have with NAFTA exactly? the vast majority of economists queried and studies done on the matter conclude it has been of net benefit for all three nations involved, though they also concur the effects have been slight and are given disproportionate significance by both proponents and opponents.

[6souls]

So the no c span coverage is due to Ryan calling a recess. During recesses, there is no video coverage.

[Ksandra]

what issues do you have with NAFTA exactly? the vast majority of economists queried and studies done on the matter conclude it has been of net benefit for all three nations involved, though they also concur the effects have been slight and are given disproportionate significance by both proponents and opponents.

I'd like to see a counter to it, but most of my impressions regarding NAFTA come from this study:


http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf


Not so greatly worded article on it, but quoting some of the summarizing:

http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf

Such outcomes include a staggering $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs under NAFTA, growing income inequality, displacement of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and a doubling of desperate immigration from Mexico, and more than $360 million paid to corporations after “investor-state” tribunal attacks on, and rollbacks of, domestic public interest policies.

[Sho]

there is a chasm between stating if Hillary doesn't pick Warren she cares more about her donors than the middle-class, and acknowledging Warren's incessant demonization of the financial sector for the entirety of her public life has to be a consideration during the vetting process given Hillary's political base is New York and she has generally been supportive of the critical role finance plays both there and nationally.

This is a very interesting scenario and I believe it only came about because Clinton polls only marginally better than Trump. That and the Dem constituency took hold of Sanders' message.

Now more than ever she will have to marry herself to the REAL Progressive agenda if she wants to win over the Sanders voters. It's no coincidence that Trump took the initiative and offered the hypothetical olive branch towards them in his speech. It was a well played move, even if it won't be effective. However, unfortunately for Clinton it won't help her at all with the Independent vote if she goes that route.

Also with Clinton's speech today, looks like she's willing to also get into the mud with Trump and counter punch him in a more negative way. Not sure how it will work out for her if she gets in too deep.

[Niiro]

it's certainly a wise line of attack given the economic illiteracy of the populace and how yelling dey took our jerbs has been an effective rallying cry for demagogic politicians since the Roman Republic.

but i snark too quickly. what issues do you have with NAFTA exactly? the vast majority of economists queried and studies done on the matter conclude it has been of net benefit for all three nations involved, though they also concur the effects have been slight and are given disproportionate significance by both proponents and opponents.

Without looking to be too contrarian ("manufacturing jobs" is a political buzz word, you can't undo economic globalization and technological advancement) it's worth noting that while trade agreements like NAFTA do offer significant economic benefits the issue is who those benefits are going to.

Just because large corporations are making record profits doesn't mean that those benefits "trickle down" to the rest of the country. How many jobs are worth having cheaper iphones so you can replace them biannually because they moved the headphone jack or something.

That's an obvious oversimplification and while you can't put the genie back in the proverbial bottle that doesn't mean you have to smash the bottle open either, large and sudden changes in economic policy tend to leave a lot of collateral damage and even if they bring net positives, when the primary beneficiaries are large corporations that's little consolation to those negatively effected.

[notorious bum]

Arguing in-favor of NAFTA is so 2000-and-late. "Will someone think of the corporations?"




I see that the Democrats are staging a sit-in on the House floor. Reports have come out that they refuse to leave until our Constitution replaces due process with secret lists.

[archibaldcrane]

Arguing in-favor of NAFTA is so 2000-and-late. "Will someone think of the corporations?"




I see that the Democrats are staging a sit-in on the House floor. Reports have come out that they refuse to leave until our Constitution replaces due process with secret lists.

Doesn't take "secret lists" to require mandatory background checks for all firearm sales.

[archibaldcrane]

but i snark too quickly. what issues do you have with NAFTA exactly? the vast majority of economists queried and studies done on the matter conclude it has been of net benefit for all three nations involved, though they also concur the effects have been slight and are given disproportionate significance by both proponents and opponents.

The problem is that the gains of free trade are widely distributed, but the losses are narrowly focused but deep. Everyone's average goods could cost 4% less and it is a big overall benefit, but if a million low-educated workers lose well-paying jobs with benefits and cannot/do not retrain or geographically relocate to compensate, they are getting really fucked for that small per-person benefit.

That being said, US manufacturing output is up 80% since 1990 - manufacturing jobs may be down 25% in that time period, but that's mostly because of automation. Robots and China joining the WTO and becoming a huge source of labor-intensive goods both have nothing to do with NAFTA, but that's a more complicated narrative than "The Clintons ruined America".



China joined the WTO at the end of 2011.

[archibaldcrane]

The other thing is that there's so much focus on manufacturing jobs because they don't require education but still pay well and provide good benefits.

But the only reason they pay well and provide good benefits is because of unions. People bitch and moan about how service jobs are worse than manufacturing jobs, not realizing that the type of labor isn't the difference, it's that the former had a strong tradition of collective bargaining and the latter doesn't. We need to make the jobs at which we have a competitive advantage work for us, not try to clawback jobs at which we don't.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...y-miss-unions/

[notorious bum]

Doesn't take "secret lists" to require mandatory background checks for all firearm sales.

That's all well and good, but they are calling for a vote on a bill that will lend credence to a racist watchlist that will do nothing to prevent another mass shooting and likely increase racial tensions in the country.

House Democrats can force a bill to come up for a vote on the floor if they are able to get 218 signatures from members on what is called a discharge petition. A discharge petition for New York Republican Rep. Peter King’s version of legislation to bar Americans on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms currently has 181 signatures. Ironically, King is notorious for targeting Muslims, having held hearings in 2011 accusing them of not properly cooperating with law enforcement to identify terrorists.

Democrats have no similar discharge petition on other gun legislation, such as Rhode Island Democratic Rep. David Cicilline’s bill to ban assault weapons.

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/22/...ist-watchlist/

[Byrthnoth]

IIRC passing this amendment will allow people to challenge their inclusion on the watchlist in court (concession to Republicans). It is a bit of a strange tie-in but improves the situation both of gun control and the watchlist.

[Inshiya]

It also notifies people that they're on the watch list, which kind of defeats the watchlist purpose.

[archibaldcrane]

That's all well and good, but they are calling for a vote on a bill that will lend credence to a racist watchlist that will do nothing to prevent another mass shooting and likely increase racial tensions in the country.

Yep.

Vox is right there with you. http://www.vox.com/2016/6/22/1200586...-gun-proposals

What's annoying is that people are getting outraged that "over 2,000 suspected terrorists successfully bought guns from 2004-2014" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...m-buying-guns/ but nobody is answering the blindingly obvious follow-up question: Did any of those people, or were any of those guns, used to commit a crime, or murder, or whatever.

tl;dr would we have benefitted at all from blocking those sales?

[Andalusian girls]

IIRC passing this amendment will allow people to challenge their inclusion on the watchlist in court (concession to Republicans). It is a bit of a strange tie-in but improves the situation both of gun control and the watchlist.

also a concession to people who care about due process and the constitution.

[Byrthnoth]

also a concession to people who care about due process and the constitution.

Ya:

I was trying to readjust my sleep schedule just now, so I put on CSPAN to try and help me fall asleep. There were a bunch of senators congratulating themselves on a bipartisan amendment that stops the No Fly and "Selected" lists of people (~2700 Americans) from buying guns. Even Lindsey Graham was in favor. It also, from listening to them talk about it, appears to give people a legal way to challenge their placement on the No Fly / Selected lists.

Initially I was worried about expanding the importance/scope of these government lists of citizens that are arbitrarily denied ability to use airplanes with no obvious due process recourse. Now it looks like the lists are expanded but can be challenged, which probably makes them better anyway. It's not much of a victory, but I'll take it.

[archibaldcrane]

The mormon Republican who took over for *gasp* Henry Kissinger as Gerald Ford's National Security Adviser (and served in the same role for George H.W. Bush) Brent Scowcroft just endorsed Hillary.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ment/86263096/

He looks like his last name would be Scowcroft, doesn't he?

[Krandor]

More Clinton e-mails got released today via the Judicial Watch lawsuit. If you care go read the stuff. It's obviously a biased source for all you Shillbots out there, but the Judicial Watch link pretty well summarizes the content.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-r...linton-emails/

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/70061...lintons-server

[archibaldcrane]

From the second link:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said in a speech Wednesday that Clinton's email server "was easily hacked by foreign governments." Trump cited no new evidence that hackers had successfully breached Clinton's server, but he said unspecified enemies of the United States were in possession of all her emails.

"So they probably now have a blackmail file over someone who wants to be President of the United States. This fact alone disqualifies her from the presidency," Trump said. "We can't hand over our government to someone whose deepest, darkest secrets may be in the hands of our enemies."

Trump is the best

[Minions]

All the while, Trump has been pumping tons of money into his own pockets. Running for president may be one of his best business ideas.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...ump-businesses