Official Current Affairs & Politics thread

[tonman]

Trump has promised $1 trillion dollar in infrastructure spending (which I support in principle), increases in military spending, no cuts to social security and medicare (which I also support), BUT also large cuts in income and corporation taxation -- when you increase spending but decrease taxation (i.e., decrease revenues), the national deficit/debt will skyrocket even higher than it already is.

I'm interested to see if he'll even remotely follow through on that (infrastructure spending). I feel like he won't because I seriously can't see how he's going to pay for that, a ridiculously bloated military budget, while cutting taxes.

What I want to know is, who is he planning on starting a war with?

Mexico
Australia
Germany
United States Media
Meryl Streep
and whoever Bannon points to...

Sweden. But I think Sweden is winning cause I haven't heard anything from Trump recently about Sweden after their comeback remarks.

[shakendfries]

I'm interested to see if he'll even remotely follow through on that (infrastructure spending). I feel like he won't because I seriously can't see how he's going to pay for that, a ridiculously bloated military budget, while cutting taxes.

What I want to know is, who is he planning on starting a war with?

Mexico
Australia
Germany
United States Media
Meryl Streep
and whoever Bannon points to...

Sweden. But I think Sweden is winning cause I haven't heard anything from Trump recently about Sweden after their comeback remarks.

Watch on YouTube

[Hello Brooklyn]

Can we please stop spreading the myth that the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie?

He lost by 12% of the vote and had a complete inability to connect with African American or Hispanic voters.

And can anyone point to anything the DNC did to actually make him lose?

He was a one issue candidate that only connected with young people and rural white voters. That's why he lost. Not because of the DNC.

[Hello Brooklyn]

I know that comment was kind of random but I was just reading through this thread for the first time.

[CalamityX12]

I know that comment was kind of random but I was just reading through this thread for the first time.

lots to digest....

[shakendfries]

Can we please stop spreading the myth that the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie?

He lost by 12% of the vote and had a complete inability to connect with African American or Hispanic voters.

And can anyone point to anything the DNC did to actually make him lose?

He was a one issue candidate that only connected with young people and rural white voters. That's why he lost. Not because of the DNC.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/

[shakendfries]

Can we please stop spreading the myth that the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie?

He lost by 12% of the vote and had a complete inability to connect with African American or Hispanic voters.

And can anyone point to anything the DNC did to actually make him lose?

He was a one issue candidate that only connected with young people and rural white voters. That's why he lost. Not because of the DNC.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/

The leak revealed information about the DNC's interactions with the media, Hillary Clinton's and Bernie Sanders' campaigns, and financial contributions. It also includes personal information about the donors of the Democratic Party, including credit card and Social Security numbers, which could facilitate identity theft.

Media
The emails include DNC staff's "off-the-record" correspondence with media personalities, including the reporters at CNN, Politico, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.

Bernie Sanders' campaign
In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign. The Washington Post reported: "Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. Basically, all of these examples came late in the primary—after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory—but they belie the national party committee's stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage."

In a May 2016 email chain, the DNC chief financial officer (CFO) Brad Marshall told the DNC chief executive officer, Amy Dacy, that they should have someone from the media ask Sanders if he is an atheist prior to the West Virginia primary. In another email, Wasserman Schultz said of Bernie Sanders, "He isn't going to be president."

On May 21, 2016, DNC National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach sent an email to DNC Spokesman Luis Miranda mentioning a controversy that ensued in December 2015 when the National Data Director of the Sanders campaign and three subordinate staffers accessed the Clinton campaign's voter information on the NGP VAN database. (The party accused Sanders' campaign of impropriety and briefly limited their access to the database. The Sanders campaign filed suit for breach of contract against the DNC; they dropped the suit on April 29, 2016.) Paustenbach suggested that the incident could be used to promote a "narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never had his act together, that his campaign was a mess." (The suggestion was rejected by the DNC.) The Washington Post wrote: "Paustenbach's suggestion, in that way, could be read as a defense of the committee rather than pushing negative information about Sanders. But this is still the committee pushing negative information about one of its candidates."

Debbie Wasserman Schultz's emails
In the aftermath of the Nevada Democratic convention, Debbie Wasserman Schultz wrote about Jeff Weaver, manager of Bernie Sanders' campaign: "Damn liar. Particularly scummy that he barely acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred".

In May 2016, MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski called on Debbie Wasserman Schultz to step down over the DNC's bias against the Bernie Sanders campaign. Schultz was upset at the negative coverage of her actions in the media, and she emailed Chuck Todd that such coverage of her "must stop". Describing the coverage as the "LAST straw", she ordered the DNC's communications director to call MSNBC president Phil Griffin to demand an apology from Brzezinski.

Financial and donor information
The New York Times wrote that the cache included "thousands of emails exchanged by Democratic officials and party fund-raisers, revealing in rarely seen detail the elaborate, ingratiating and often bluntly transactional exchanges necessary to harvest hundreds of millions of dollars from the party’s wealthy donor class. The emails capture a world where seating charts are arranged with dollar totals in mind, where a White House celebration of gay pride is a thinly disguised occasion for rewarding wealthy donors and where physical proximity to the president is the most precious of currencies." As is common in national politics, large party donors "were the subject of entire dossiers, as fund-raisers tried to gauge their interests, annoyances and passions."

In a series of email exchanges in April and May 2016, DNC fundraising staff discussed and compiled a list of people (mainly donors) who might be appointed to federal boards and commissions. Center for Responsive Politics senior fellow Bob Biersack noted that this is a longstanding practice in the United States: "Big donors have always risen to the top of lists for appointment to plum ambassadorships and other boards and commissions around the federal landscape." The White House denied that financial support for the party was connected to board appointments, saying: "Being a donor does not get you a role in this administration, nor does it preclude you from getting one. We’ve said this for many years now and there's nothing in the emails that have been released that contradicts that."

[Hello Brooklyn]

Can we please stop spreading the myth that the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie?

He lost by 12% of the vote and had a complete inability to connect with African American or Hispanic voters.

And can anyone point to anything the DNC did to actually make him lose?

He was a one issue candidate that only connected with young people and rural white voters. That's why he lost. Not because of the DNC.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/

The leak revealed information about the DNC's interactions with the media, Hillary Clinton's and Bernie Sanders' campaigns, and financial contributions. It also includes personal information about the donors of the Democratic Party, including credit card and Social Security numbers, which could facilitate identity theft.

Media
The emails include DNC staff's "off-the-record" correspondence with media personalities, including the reporters at CNN, Politico, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.

Bernie Sanders' campaign
In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign. The Washington Post reported: "Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. Basically, all of these examples came late in the primary—after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory—but they belie the national party committee's stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage."

In a May 2016 email chain, the DNC chief financial officer (CFO) Brad Marshall told the DNC chief executive officer, Amy Dacy, that they should have someone from the media ask Sanders if he is an atheist prior to the West Virginia primary. In another email, Wasserman Schultz said of Bernie Sanders, "He isn't going to be president."

On May 21, 2016, DNC National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach sent an email to DNC Spokesman Luis Miranda mentioning a controversy that ensued in December 2015 when the National Data Director of the Sanders campaign and three subordinate staffers accessed the Clinton campaign's voter information on the NGP VAN database. (The party accused Sanders' campaign of impropriety and briefly limited their access to the database. The Sanders campaign filed suit for breach of contract against the DNC; they dropped the suit on April 29, 2016.) Paustenbach suggested that the incident could be used to promote a "narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never had his act together, that his campaign was a mess." (The suggestion was rejected by the DNC.) The Washington Post wrote: "Paustenbach's suggestion, in that way, could be read as a defense of the committee rather than pushing negative information about Sanders. But this is still the committee pushing negative information about one of its candidates."

Debbie Wasserman Schultz's emails
In the aftermath of the Nevada Democratic convention, Debbie Wasserman Schultz wrote about Jeff Weaver, manager of Bernie Sanders' campaign: "Damn liar. Particularly scummy that he barely acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred".

In May 2016, MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski called on Debbie Wasserman Schultz to step down over the DNC's bias against the Bernie Sanders campaign. Schultz was upset at the negative coverage of her actions in the media, and she emailed Chuck Todd that such coverage of her "must stop". Describing the coverage as the "LAST straw", she ordered the DNC's communications director to call MSNBC president Phil Griffin to demand an apology from Brzezinski.

Financial and donor information
The New York Times wrote that the cache included "thousands of emails exchanged by Democratic officials and party fund-raisers, revealing in rarely seen detail the elaborate, ingratiating and often bluntly transactional exchanges necessary to harvest hundreds of millions of dollars from the party’s wealthy donor class. The emails capture a world where seating charts are arranged with dollar totals in mind, where a White House celebration of gay pride is a thinly disguised occasion for rewarding wealthy donors and where physical proximity to the president is the most precious of currencies." As is common in national politics, large party donors "were the subject of entire dossiers, as fund-raisers tried to gauge their interests, annoyances and passions."

In a series of email exchanges in April and May 2016, DNC fundraising staff discussed and compiled a list of people (mainly donors) who might be appointed to federal boards and commissions. Center for Responsive Politics senior fellow Bob Biersack noted that this is a longstanding practice in the United States: "Big donors have always risen to the top of lists for appointment to plum ambassadorships and other boards and commissions around the federal landscape." The White House denied that financial support for the party was connected to board appointments, saying: "Being a donor does not get you a role in this administration, nor does it preclude you from getting one. We’ve said this for many years now and there's nothing in the emails that have been released that contradicts that."

Yeah so basically there were some staffers in the DNC preferred Hillary over Bernie in emails that were illegally hacked.

Is that supposed to convince me that the primaries were "rigged" against Bernie.

What did they actually do to hurt Bernie's candidacy that would have made up the 4 million votes he lost by.

Bernie had no actual chance in the primary because he did horribly with African American voters. No matter what the DNC did.

[Rich Rane]

I'm shocked that he didn't go on a tirade today after GW's critical remarks about cheeto overlord's petulance.

How bad of a POTUS do you have to be where Bush Jr. sounds reasonable in comparison?

[MrDollarBills]

Can we please stop spreading the myth that the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie?

He lost by 12% of the vote and had a complete inability to connect with African American or Hispanic voters.

And can anyone point to anything the DNC did to actually make him lose?

He was a one issue candidate that only connected with young people and rural white voters. That's why he lost. Not because of the DNC.

I'm a black voter who voted for Sanders in the primary, I would have also voted for Sanders in the general election without hesitation because while some of his platform i thought was a bit idealistic and i did not really like his tax policies because I'd get hit in my pockets, I believed that he was genuine in his message and would work for the greater good of everyone, and not just the wealthy elite, he was the only candidate that was interested in the general welfare of everyone in America.

The problem (in my opinion) wasn't his message or Sanders himself, because he connected with me as a black voter in his 30s just fine, but the problem was with the urban and rural voters themselves who don't pay attention to politics until it's election season and that the baby boomer/generation X black voters have this really odd love affair with the Clinton family when they were responsible for irreparable damage to the black american population with their policies.

Calling him a one issue candidate...I'm not really clear on what you mean especially when Clinton really wasn't saying much of anything aside from lame pandering. He addressed many issues, especially ones that directly impacted minorities including the prison for profit system. Regarding the DNC, well them getting hacked exposed the pro Clinton agenda of that see you next tuesday Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her cronies, and also the whole super delegate nonsense which basically ensures the corporate establishment's candidate will have an advantage. I think that's where the problem is. Me personally, I think that a lot of minority democrat voters were just going with who they knew, or were voting for Clinton based on gender reasons.

[MrDollarBills]

I'm shocked that he didn't go on a tirade today after GW's critical remarks about cheeto overlord's petulance.

How bad of a POTUS do you have to be where Bush Jr. sounds reasonable in comparison?

Bush was dirty, but not once did he have anyone thinking that he was some sort of bigoted, racist degenerate like king joffrey over here is, nor did he manipulate his voter base in order to discredit the press over reporting facts that painted him unfavorably.

Also, it shows just have severely far right the GOP and their base has gone in general. Bush was incompetent and a puppet, but not once did he come off as unhinged as this nutjob.

[shakendfries]

Yeah so basically there were some staffers in the DNC preferred Hillary over Bernie in emails that were illegally hacked.

Is that supposed to convince me that the primaries were "rigged" against Bernie.

What did they actually do to hurt Bernie's candidacy that would have made up the 4 million votes he lost by.

Bernie had no actual chance in the primary because he did horribly with African American voters. No matter what the DNC did.

Do you have a full understanding of who Debbie Wasserman Schultz is?

Do you have a full understanding of how someone of her authority reaching out to media outlets to minimize coverage of Sanders' candidacy could've public perception?

Do you have a full understanding of why she was forced to resign from her position after the emails leaked?

[Hello Brooklyn]

Can we please stop spreading the myth that the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie?

He lost by 12% of the vote and had a complete inability to connect with African American or Hispanic voters.

And can anyone point to anything the DNC did to actually make him lose?

He was a one issue candidate that only connected with young people and rural white voters. That's why he lost. Not because of the DNC.

I'm a black voter who voted for Sanders in the primary, I would have also voted for Sanders in the general election without hesitation because while some of his platform i thought was a bit idealistic and i did not really like his tax policies because I'd get hit in my pockets, I believed that he was genuine in his message and would work for the greater good of everyone, and not just the wealthy elite, he was the only candidate that was interested in the general welfare of everyone in America.

The problem (in my opinion) wasn't his message or Sanders himself, because he connected with me as a black voter in his 30s just fine, but the problem was with the urban and rural voters themselves who don't pay attention to politics until it's election season and that the baby boomer/generation X black voters have this really odd love affair with the Clinton family when they were responsible for irreparable damage to the black american population with their policies.

Calling him a one issue candidate...I'm not really clear on what you mean especially when Clinton really wasn't saying much of anything aside from lame pandering. He addressed many issues, especially ones that directly impacted minorities including the prison for profit system. Regarding the DNC, well them getting hacked exposed the pro Clinton agenda of that see you next tuesday Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her cronies, and also the whole super delegate nonsense which basically ensures the corporate establishment's candidate will have an advantage. I think that's where the problem is. Me personally, I think that a lot of minority democrat voters were just going with who they knew, or were voting for Clinton based on gender reasons.

I don't think that's true at all.

Sanders may have connected with you, but he didn't connect with the vast majority of African American voters. Sanders didn't talk about racism in his economic plans. He didn't talk about racial justice either.

These were central components of Clinton's platform. He started talking about it later on after he started doing so poorly in the early states. But it was never a central part of his message.

Furthermore, I think it's wrong to say Gen X/Baby Boomer African American voters don't know what's going on, while older rural voters do.

In actuality, I think uneducated white voters in states like West Virginia and Kentucky (where Sanders did well) know less of what's going on.

Amongst educated voters in place like New York, California, Texas, Clinton killed Sanders. And these are the people who pay the most attention to politics.

Sanders was a one issue candidate because he only talked about income inequality. He didn't understand foreign policy very well, his Health Care plan was completely unrealistic, and whenever he veered off of economics he didn't seem to know what he was talking about.

Obviously DWS was pro-Clinton. Bernie Sanders didn't even become a Democrat until he decided he wanted to run for President. It's only natural for the Democratic establishment to prefer Clinton over someone they feel was using them to run for higher office. That doesn't mean they did anything to actually tip the election in Clinton's favor. In reality, Bernie did make it much closer than everyone expected. But at no point did he actually have any chance of beating Clinton.

He did horribly among Hispanic and African American voters every time. The only states he did well in were more conservative 90%+ white states.

I don't understand why you think minorities "just voted for who they knew" and poor white voters took the time to get to know the candidates.

In the same way that Sanders spoke to young people and rural white voters, Clinton's message appealed to educated whites and minorities.

[Hello Brooklyn]

Yeah so basically there were some staffers in the DNC preferred Hillary over Bernie in emails that were illegally hacked.

Is that supposed to convince me that the primaries were "rigged" against Bernie.

What did they actually do to hurt Bernie's candidacy that would have made up the 4 million votes he lost by.

Bernie had no actual chance in the primary because he did horribly with African American voters. No matter what the DNC did.

Do you have a full understanding of who Debbie Wasserman Schultz is?

Do you have a full understanding of how someone of her authority reaching out to media outlets to minimize coverage of Sanders' candidacy could've public perception?

Do you have a full understanding of why she was forced to resign from her position after the emails leaked?

I think I know who DWS is. I've actually met her in real life.

Can you show me proof that DWS instructed media outlets not to cover Sanders? Or that even if she did they listened?

Sanders lost because Sanders couldn't appeal to black or Hispanic voters. It wasn't because of DWS.

And yes she did say inappropriate things over email and got fired. That doesn't mean the primary was rigged.

[shakendfries]

I don't think that's true at all.

You could''ve stopped here. Nobody on this board is going to convince you to stop drinking the democratic kool-aid if you're unwilling to accept things that may go against the dominant media narrative. All we can do is invite you to research this yourself and reach your own conclusions. If you truly trust the logic & reasoning that the dominant media outlets, like CNN, that have for months claimed Trump had absolutely no chance, use every opportunity to make it seem as if the country is collapsing at the seams because of his election, have redacted reports/stories that have been harsh on Hiilary Clinton upon her request, and actively fed her questions before the debates, you might be a bit less enlightened than the American voters you frown upon

[Hello Brooklyn]

I don't think that's true at all.

You could''ve stopped here. Nobody on this board is going to convince you to stop drinking the democratic kool-aid if you're unwilling to accept things that may go against the dominant media narrative. All we can do is invite you to research this yourself and reach your own conclusions. If you truly trust the logic & reasoning that the dominant media outlets, like CNN, that have for months claimed Trump had absolutely no chance, use every opportunity to make it seem as if the country is collapsing at the seams because of his election, have redacted reports/stories that have been harsh on Hiilary Clinton upon her request, and actively fed her questions before the debates, you might be a bit less enlightened than the American voters you frown upon

I love how you're pretending as if you know more about this than me.

It's you who's blindly followed the media's narrative that the primary was "rigged." I don't remember the media combatting this story line. In fact, they constantly fed into it.

You haven't actually looked into the facts of what happened. You're telling me to "do my own research" because you can't provide any evidence that the primary was rigged. Or that anything the DNC did caused Bernie Sanders to lose.

The media never redacted any stories that were negative of Clinton. The media talked about Hillary's email story constantly even though there was nothing there. The media talked about Hillary's emails more than anything ever related to Trump. And their coverage of James Comey's letter in the last couple of days, is an important reason why she lost.

And how is saying Trump had "no chance" helping Hillary. In fact, that hurt her because it made people complacent. The idea that the media was super pro-Clinton the whole time is complete nonsense. They are the ones that normalized Trump and gave him 2 billion in free advertising.

Bernie lost the primary because he didn't connect with minority voters. A couple of emails from DWS deriding Bernie for hacking into Hillary's campaign data, doesn't change that.

[shakendfries]

I don't think that's true at all.

You could''ve stopped here. Nobody on this board is going to convince you to stop drinking the democratic kool-aid if you're unwilling to accept things that may go against the dominant media narrative. All we can do is invite you to research this yourself and reach your own conclusions. If you truly trust the logic & reasoning that the dominant media outlets, like CNN, that have for months claimed Trump had absolutely no chance, use every opportunity to make it seem as if the country is collapsing at the seams because of his election, have redacted reports/stories that have been harsh on Hiilary Clinton upon her request, and actively fed her questions before the debates, you might be a bit less enlightened than the American voters you frown upon

I love how you're pretending as if you know more about this than me. I've spent more time working on political campaigns then you will in your entire life.

It's you who's blindly followed the media's narrative that the primary was "rigged." I don't remember the media combatting this story line. In fact, they constantly fed into it.

You haven't actually looked into the facts of what happened. You're telling me to "do my own research" because you can't provide any evidence that the primary was rigged. Or that anything the DNC did caused Bernie Sanders to lose.

The media never redacted any stories that were negative of Clinton. The media talked about Hillary's email story constantly even though there was nothing there. The media talked about Hillary's emails more than anything ever related to Trump. And their coverage of James Comey's letter in the last couple of days, is an important reason why she lost.

And how is saying Trump had "no chance" helping Hillary. In fact, that hurt her because it made people complacent. The idea that the media was super pro-Clinton the whole time is complete nonsense. They are the ones that normalized Trump and gave him 2 billion in free advertising.

Bernie lost the primary because he didn't connect with minority voters. A couple of emails from DWS deriding Bernie for hacking into Hillary's campaign data, doesn't change that.

Yeah maybe you're right. Regardless, I find it hard to engage in honest discourse when you cite little to no evidence to support your position, while simultaneously demanding evidence from others to support theirs.

[Hello Brooklyn]

You could''ve stopped here. Nobody on this board is going to convince you to stop drinking the democratic kool-aid if you're unwilling to accept things that may go against the dominant media narrative. All we can do is invite you to research this yourself and reach your own conclusions. If you truly trust the logic & reasoning that the dominant media outlets, like CNN, that have for months claimed Trump had absolutely no chance, use every opportunity to make it seem as if the country is collapsing at the seams because of his election, have redacted reports/stories that have been harsh on Hiilary Clinton upon her request, and actively fed her questions before the debates, you might be a bit less enlightened than the American voters you frown upon

I love how you're pretending as if you know more about this than me. I've spent more time working on political campaigns then you will in your entire life.

It's you who's blindly followed the media's narrative that the primary was "rigged." I don't remember the media combatting this story line. In fact, they constantly fed into it.

You haven't actually looked into the facts of what happened. You're telling me to "do my own research" because you can't provide any evidence that the primary was rigged. Or that anything the DNC did caused Bernie Sanders to lose.

The media never redacted any stories that were negative of Clinton. The media talked about Hillary's email story constantly even though there was nothing there. The media talked about Hillary's emails more than anything ever related to Trump. And their coverage of James Comey's letter in the last couple of days, is an important reason why she lost.

And how is saying Trump had "no chance" helping Hillary. In fact, that hurt her because it made people complacent. The idea that the media was super pro-Clinton the whole time is complete nonsense. They are the ones that normalized Trump and gave him 2 billion in free advertising.

Bernie lost the primary because he didn't connect with minority voters. A couple of emails from DWS deriding Bernie for hacking into Hillary's campaign data, doesn't change that.

Yeah maybe you're right. Regardless, I find it hard to engage in honest discourse when you cite little to no evidence to support your position, while simultaneously demanding evidence from others to support theirs.

I'm disputing your claim, why should I have to provide evidence?

I'm merely being skeptical of your claim/evidence.

[Roy Tarpley]

Some of this depends on how you define "rigged."

If "rigged" means unfair, then yes, there were certainly elements of the primary process that demonstrated the DNC's bias in favor of Clinton (DWS not allowing more debates, Donna Brazile leaking debate questions to Clinton).

If "rigged" means the Clintons/DNC doctored the system so that Bernie had no chance of winning, then this is hard to prove. I agree that Bernie had a difficult time with intersectionality and broadening his economic/class argument to race/identity. Obama was skilled in being both unifying AND playing the identity politics while Clinton tries but is terrible. Bernie almost didn't even seem to try, he was so focused on the wealth inequality issue.

[Roy Tarpley]

The real question is who the Dems need to nominate to take out Trump in 2020?

Those who think that Dems need to go left would say someone like Bernie or Warren.

Those who think that Dems need to pick a mainstream candidate might argue for Booker or Gillibrand.

I think Trump can botch up EVERYTHING (like he has been) but if he just follows through on getting jobs for folks in the Rust Belt, he's in good shape unfortunately.