Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Michael Hopcroft]

There's some question in my mind whether California will ever get any of that "grass tax" money. Marijuana is still illegal on the federal level, and the Trump base doesn't want to change that in the near future. If anything, the tendency of west coast states to take legalization of drugs into their own hands is something the people who are running Congress despise. Sometime soon the Supreme Court is going to be asked to rule on this issue, and it is possible (perhaps likely) they will rule that regulation of pharmaceuticals is a federal prerogative, marijuana is illegal nationally, and the people states had been counting on to pad their coffers are federal felons.

 

It depends, I suppose, how much revenge the red states want to take on the blue.

[Iuz the Evil]

(Shrug) Colorado is banking it, and California is in good company. We'll get it until someone stops it.

 

 

California, Massachusetts, Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and the District of Columbia allow recreational use. 28 states allow a medical use (including most recently Montana and Arkansas).

 

It's not entirely a blue state issue, and since I don't care that much about it except the tax revenue, I would be semi-delighted if it became a major point of debate/argument. Better to spend political capital on that than something dangerous.

[Pariah]

Trump needs to go on TV and unambiguously dissociate himself from hate groups, racism, etc. Meeting with the Khans would also be a good start.

Agreed in every particular. This has to be stopped before it starts. He's won as a Republican; now it's time to focus on leading Americans.

[Ranxerox]

I am well aware, it's heavily part of my job providing social service management in California.

 

You're probably looking at some form of state subsidized program. Even the most ambitious repeal of ACA is not likely to take place until 2018. Tax revenue from newly legalized marijuana already being discussed. Every single Medi-cal bond measure passed. It's bad, but California (while it may have to scale back) isn't going to fully eliminate expanded Medi-Cal benefits. Especially not with a multi billion dollar budget surplus and new tax revenue on the way. No chance. Total cost would be at most $15 billion annually to fully cover as is, that's unlikely but we could be maybe 30% there without significant changes based on identified revenue already that was going to be earmarked for expansion.

 

Will be painful but there it is. The legislature just expanded enrollment to include undocumented youth, and that's 100% on the state dime. There's very little likelihood DHCS and the State is contemplating letting the exchanges go. Just changes where the subsidies come from and might be forced to modify benefit plans. Could increase price, limit benefits, or push down eligibility ceiling.

 

We're spending a lot of time just the last couple days talking about this in Sacramento. Got another meeting on Monday. Would cost billions to keep it going as is. Cuts may be necessary, but the general tenor is to keep going and see what can be achieved to maintain the significant gains of the program.

 

If Trump follows through on the state control of their own Medicaid promise, that's what it will look like. If not, it'll be a hybrid.

 

Well, I will take this as hopeful news.  Glad to hear it.

[TheDarkness]

I've had multiple staff report incidents to me since Wednesday. And I'm in Napa, California with a 66% Clinton vote in the northern Bay Area.

 

Edit: just to be clear, that'd be refusal to accept services from a person of color (stated outright), explicit commentary on the sexual attractiveness of a clinical staff by a community stakeholder, threats about deportation, and many nasty comments. In essentially 1.5 days. With a grand total of 2 such incidents in the preceding month. Could be coincidence, but seems suspicious.

 

Cannot imagine what is going on out there. The emboldened racism (and sexual harassment) is pretty ugly.

The running tactic is now to blame Obama. I've seen a number of people say, "Trump's not president yet, so how could it be his fault." Apparently none of us are responsible for our actions until we win the presidency.

 

I'm raiding the vending machine. Thanks, Obama!

[TheDarkness]

Never mind, ignore.

 

[Sociotard]

Portland is officially rioting.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/www.oregonlive.com/articles/19646563/anti-trump_protests_held_for_f.amp&ved=0ahUKEwiP88_IhKDQAhVCi1QKHQDzBwUQFghpMBs&usg=AFQjCNF8vuNycxF2yYDEJ8s3Rv_cUDAoZg&sig2=NJrHLP8X5EXvYioRH4jjhw

[Badger]

The running tactic is now to blame Obama. I've seen a number of people say, "Trump's not president yet, so how could it be his fault." Apparently none of us are responsible for our actions until we win the presidency.

 

I'm raiding the vending machine. Thanks, Obama!

 

I blame Bush.

[薔薇語]

Portland is officially rioting.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/www.oregonlive.com/articles/19646563/anti-trump_protests_held_for_f.amp&ved=0ahUKEwiP88_IhKDQAhVCi1QKHQDzBwUQFghpMBs&usg=AFQjCNF8vuNycxF2yYDEJ8s3Rv_cUDAoZg&sig2=NJrHLP8X5EXvYioRH4jjhw

 

Jeez. Again, people really need to take a chill pill. One election does not equate to the end of the freaking world! 

 

And since we are all about issues of voter suppression through intimidation: imagine what it is like to be a Republican leaning person in Oregon now. Everyone needs to come together and condemn this mayhem. Not because of some idiotic notion that Secretary Clinton, President Elect Trump, President Obama, nor most media elites are responsible for its creation, but because we are ALL responsible for the smooth transition of power.

 

Soar.  

[薔薇語]

Also, Russia has confirmed that they were assisting Trump's campaign.

 

So, there's that.

 

I don't think that story says what you think it says. Nor do I think it says what the author hoped it would say. As a good ol' Missourian, I think I know some good ol' yellow journalism when I sees it. And I sees it. 

 

If we are to trust the FBI, there has been no connection between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The mere fact that some people in power have had contact with other people of power in other nations is not new nor news worthy. And given some of the urging to put ourselves (the US) into other people's elections by members here, perhaps we don't have much room to criticize Russians for having a dog in this fight.

 

Soar. 

 

 

 

[TheDarkness]

Actual quote from the founder of the alt-right movement, Richard Spencer. Again, Breitbart hails itself as the media source of the alt-right, who actually call sources like Breitbard Alt-lite for making the theme's more palatable by proposing the same solutions as the white nationalists, but omitting the ideology these solutions come from:

 

“The ruling, non-discriminatory ideology, that we’ll be a little stronger for the more piquancy of the sauce, is a suicidal ideology,” Spencer says. “The races are not equivalent or interchangeable. The prevailing ideology is one that will lead to the ultimate dispossession of my people and my culture.”

 

https://www.wired.com/2016/10/alt-right-grew-obscure-racist-cabal/

 

"“Most people who get interested in these groups aren’t drawn in by the rhetoric. They work their way there slowly.” So while not everyone shouting about cucks on Twitter is a Richard Spencer in the making, a proportion of them probably are."

 

Spencer on Hillary's talk about the alt-right:

 

"Spencer is hopeful about Clinton’s speech, writing on his site Radix Journal on Thursday that “Hillary is trying to push the GOP into permanent minority status by empowering the alt-right—and, believe me, she will be empowering us today. The alt-right is, in a way, what people wrongly accuse the GOP of being: a nationalist party for White people. Hillary’s alt-right speech will try to force the GOP to become what it is.”"

[DasBroot]

At this point BOTH parties should be looking at each other and saying "My God, what have we done?"

 

Did the media cause the riots? No.  Did the parties cause the riots? No. Did Trump becoming president cause the riots? No.  Were they all catalysts? Quite probably.

 

American culture is steeped in standing up to bullies.  If you run a campaign where you're perceived as one the entire time based on the things you say and the things you don't say you can't expect people to stand down because it 'worked'.  You don't just get to make people literally terrified of your victory and expect their fears to magically evaporate with one vaguely political sounding speech. You don't get time to show that it was all 'locker room talk' and that the campaign you ran won't reflect your presidency.

 

Actions have consequences.  The way this campaign was run these riots were inevitable no matter who won - if the results were switched there's no way Trump wouldn't be calling for recounts in Florida and Pennsylvania at the very least, and no way his voter base wouldn't be on the streets demanding it (especially if he won the popular vote - both he and they would be able to point at that and scream 'see, see... the system IS rigged.')

 

Jeez. Again, people really need to take a chill pill. One election does not equate to the end of the freaking world! 

And since we are all about issues of voter suppression through intimidation: imagine what it is like to be a Republican leaning person in Oregon now. Everyone needs to come together and condemn this mayhem. Not because of some idiotic notion that Secretary Clinton, President Elect Trump, President Obama, nor most media elites are responsible for its creation, but because we are ALL responsible for the smooth transition of power.

Soar.  

 

There's actually quite a few Republicans on the NeverTrump side. A lot of us are more angry with the party than anything else - this caricature of a Republican candidate never should have won the primary.  I wasn't kidding earlier when I said that many Republicans held their noses as they voted for their parties candidate... it describes three quarters of my family. None of them actually support Trump and his rhetoric but all of us are ready to give him the benefit of the doubt (as a president NOT as a person. He earns nothing but contempt for the things he's said.)

 

You are a hundred percent correct - this mayhem must be stopped before more people get hurt.  The real question will be - based on everything else that led to it - how?  Condemning it will not work, and actions against it will make it worse.

 

tl:dr:  I wish people would chill out, but I understand why they feel like they can't.

 

[薔薇語]

There has been a fair bit of talk about the Demographic breakdowns this election cycle. To figure out what was actually happening, I went through the CNN and Wikipedia demographics breakdown for the most recent four elections. 
 

Voter Demo Over 4 Elections

 

I published it as a downloadable PDF file. 

 

Soar. 

 

Now that I have had time to think and ponder the data, here are my thoughts (pulled from my FB):

 

Now that I have made the Demographics breakdown, It is far easier for me to assess some of the ideas floating around in regards to President Elect Trump's win.

 

Re: White people

 

This cycle, as opposed to 2004 (77%) and 2008 (72%) were a smaller block at just 70% of the total vote. The Republican pull on white people in general was the same this year as 2012 and 2004 (58%). The Democratic pull on White People, though, was smaller at just 37% this year to 39% last time and 43% in 08 and 41% in 04. This year, more than any other year by a long shot saw a massive increase in 3rd party voting by whites.

 

Re: White men

 

Other than 2008, white men have been very consistently voting for Rep at a uniform 62-63%. In 2008 there was a big dip of 8%. Pres. Obama drew in a LOT (8%!) of white male voters then. Secretary Clinton drew in the absolute fewest white men (31%). But it wasn't because they went for Trump; the broke for third party.

 

Re: White Women

 

White women have stayed consistent all four cycles. 53-55% for Republicans and 44-46% for dems. This year was a low year and saw a modest rise in Third Party candidates.

 

Re: Urban vs Rural.

 

Rural voters have drop quite a bit as a voting block. 25% in 04 to 17% this year. This time they had a very similar Republican break as in 2012. It might be too simplistic to say it has become more Republican but perhaps just less Democratic. This year there was 62% for Trump vs 60% last time and that is up a lot from 53% in 2008. But on whole this block has seen a decline in Dem support and slight and comparable increase in third party.

 

Urban and Suburban voters saw very little change from 08 to today. Those populations became FAR less Republican compared to their 04 counterparts and grew almost equally FAR more democratic. But not perfectly! They saw a giant leap in third party support this time (6 and 5% respectively).

 

Re: No Black vote / No Latino vote

 

Nope. Just nope. The black vote was the same portion of the electorate as it has always been (11-13%). They, however INCREASED in voting for a Republican this year (8% compared to 4% in 08). And also increased in third party support a bit. They also went back to their 04 support of Democrats at 88% compared to the 95% of 04.

 

Latinos also had similar voting trends for the last three cycles. What is unique about 04 compared to the last three is that President Bush got a TON of the Latino vote (44% compared to P.E. Trump's 29%).

 

So, what does all this mean?

 

Ultimately there were some natural quirks here and there with subtle changes but no group really changed their party support TO President Elect Trump. Rather the opposite: people rejected Secretary Clinton on most every demographic she lost compared to President Obama and Secretary Kerry.

 

Secretary Clinton LOST this election - President Elect Trump did NOT win it.

[csyphrett]

The only glimmer of hope for anything I'd consider good to come out of the Trump Presidency might be finally doing something about China's invidious trading position and expansionism.

 

Trump has said he's going to do something about the balance of trade with China. Maybe he'll succeed in building a global consensus to put pressure on them to stop their state subsidy of all their industry (achieved via the artificial maintenance of the Yuan at below-market-rate values). Maybe he'll succeed in getting the world to stand up against the systematic and government sanctioned flouting of international IP rules. Maybe he'll stand up to them in the South China Sea. While he's at it, perhaps he'll put pressure on them to give their citizens the freedoms most of the rest of the world have come to view as desirable societal goods.

 

But he probably won't. Making it work would hurt. Even if the long term gains of having China be an actual equal partner in global free trade (rather than a beneficiary of unequal trading)

he's not going to do anything about China except pay off what he owes them.

CES 

[TheDarkness]

he's not going to do anything about China except pay off what he owes them.

CES 

Yeah, he has no Republican or Democrat support for that. None. He has no industry support, and everyone is well aware that American consumers would be the big loser for that deal, and heads would roll in future elections.

[csyphrett]

A rumor has come around that Paul Ryan is setting up to gut medicare and medicaid for old people. I hope this is true.

CES

[death tribble]

Electing Trump is another great American idea. You know like Prohibition. And look how that turned out.

[csyphrett]

Yeah, he has no Republican or Democrat support for that. None. He has no industry support, and everyone is well aware that American consumers would be the big loser for that deal, and heads would roll in future elections.

What I meant was he personally owes China 300+ mil. They own him.

CES

[csyphrett]

Electing Trump is another great American idea. You know like Prohibition. And look how that turned out.

I and my boy voted for Hillary. So no on this.

CES

[csyphrett]

Also since the cases he is involved in came up before the election, Trump can be charged if there is enough evidence. he definitely can be forced to pay damages for the defamation case and the tip jar stealing case.

CES

[Netzilla]

Secretary Clinton LOST this election - President Elect Trump did NOT win it.

 

 

Yep.  I've been saying this since Wednesday morning, and this is why I'm so angry with the Democratic party right now.  They, once again, put up a business-as-usual candidate that failed to inspire people to vote FOR her.  Instead, they were banking on people voting against Trump and that's a terrible strategy.  Voters want to be given a different choice, which is why Democrat voters either didn't show up or went 3rd party.  The sad thing is, it's not the first time they've done this and I fear they still haven't learned their lesson.  DNC leaders and pundits are already trying to blame the voters for not showing up rather than taking a hard look at themselves.

[Netzilla]

Electing Trump is another great American idea. You know like Prohibition. And look how that turned out.

 

Yeah, that's not a fair assessment of the situation.  Even if Trump had won the popular as well, it would have been by such a narrow margin that you can't blame this on the entirety of the U.S. voting population.  We were given the choice between an establishment candidate and someone who gave the appearance of an outsider (even if a buffoonish one).  He was so much the outsider that significant leaders in his own party refused to support him.  You can't buy a better outsider image than that.  So, while this result didn't seem likely, it's easily understandable.

[薔薇語]

Even the narrative of voters not showing up is incorrect. It is true that there was lower overall voter turnout this year than in the previous two cycles, but that turnout was equally depressed on both sides. That depression was also relatively minor. The "Democratic base" showed up at the polls but couldn't bring themselves to 100% commit to what was on the plate. 

Why do we know this to be the case? Because, despite there being an overall decline in voter turnout, the Republican voter share didn't increase. Had it been a Democratic Depression alone, we would have seen the Republican share rise in equal proportions. It didn't. Republicans faced off against the exact same numbers of non-Republicans. But their opposition was not united. 

 

Soar. 

[Netzilla]

That's why we need to make sure that the Democratic Party leadership doesn't get away with trying to spin the narrative that low voter turnout and 'millennial apathy' was why they lost.  They lost because they didn't give people a valid alternative choice.  The mood in this country has been that we're sick of establishment candidates, so running one was a terrible idea.

[薔薇語]

Indeed. 

Speaking of young voter apathy, though, it should be noted that young(ish) voters were the principle drivers for third party candidates. Overall the third parties picked up about 5%. But for voters under 40, it was almost double that (8-9%). 

 

Soar.