Serious The Politics Thread

Because for most Americans financial well-being is how they interpret the concept of being "better off" in which case, they're right. They had more money and spending power 4 years ago than they do now. You seem fine ignoring the average voters opinion because it doesn't match the DATA yet when the DATA backs up something you dislike you become a CNN anchor. The stimulus checks and unemployment benefits did a lot for people. Just because they couldn't eat inside a restaurant doesn't mean they weren't doing better financially.
Not ignoring the opinion I said the opinion is wrong. Opinions can be objectively be wrong. 70 degrees F can be warm to a voter in Minnesota yet cold to a voter in Florida. The modern news landscape has been failing the population because they will run a story on why it doesn’t actually feel like 70 degrees instead of just reporting what the damn temperature it is. And right now it is a coin flip if US democracy survives this.
 
It doesn't mean they're not living paycheck to paycheck. I imagine you are like me and make more than the average American, so it doesn't feel as real to us, but it's not something to just wave away and has nothing to do with the sitting president.
“Paycheck to paycheck” is a difficult to use measure, because it is self reported and it is hard to disentangle from poor financial management. The amount of people living “paycheck to paycheck” increased the most among high earners, dramatically, while holding stead for other income groups. This seems to support the case that there has been robust growth in real wages among the lowest income workers, otherwise their paycheck to paycheck number would also increase in comparison to before the pandemic. Most of the (new) handwringing would be appear to be coming from high level earners making over 100k, not the poorest americans.
 
In todays US news:

-Trump launched an unhinged rant about Memorial Day on truth social.

-Jury deliberations on the NY trial are set to begin this week. 34 felony charges. It’s possible in a week or two the US will have a convicted criminal running for President.

-Trump promised donors he will “crush” pro-Palestinian protesters if elected.

-I did some diving into the crosstabs of A+ rated NY Times / Siena poll that has Trump leading all the battleground states. The key detail to watch is that the headline takes from their polls that include 18% of respondents that did not vote in 2020. That number was even higher, 27% and 35% for black and Hispanic respondents respectively. In the next row of cross tabs, the polls when done with 2020 voters paints a different picture, with Biden winning handily in most of the battleground states. Curious. Is the media trying to craft a narrative here…?
 
Last edited:

Aqua Jet

Boogie Time
is a Contributor to Smogonis a Community Contributor Alumnus
I haven’t been payin much attention to the Trump Trails but I am curious - if he’s found guilty or “loses” the trail in New York (I think this is the hush money one?), can he go to prison?
Also what happened to the other trials in New York and Georgia?
 
Trump can go to prison if convicted. However, it seems unlikely given these are non-violent white collar crimes with relatively short sentences. And he is a former President with special security considerations.
 
perpetually whining online about how you're not going to vote, which is a great fucking way to ensure no one takes your demands seriously in the first place.
I wish that I could beam this bit directly into the brains of all the people, here and elsewhere, who broadcast that they're not going to vote. It's perfectly natural to be dissatisfied with the current political establishment, but checking out altogether doesn't motivate any change. Politicians would quite like to secure the votes of the apathetic, but they don't need those votes. They just need a majority of the people who do vote to vote for them. Simply not voting isn't going to put pressure on them.
 
I wish that I could beam this bit directly into the brains of all the people, here and elsewhere, who broadcast that they're not going to vote. It's perfectly natural to be dissatisfied with the current political establishment, but checking out altogether doesn't motivate any change. Politicians would quite like to secure the votes of the apathetic, but they don't need those votes. They just need a majority of the people who do vote to vote for them. Simply not voting isn't going to put pressure on them.
Right, and there's plenty that can be done to push politicians to those positions while still voting for them. Granted, I have an easier time at it because I know a lot about foreign policy, extremism, and related subjects. Hell, half of the time it just takes explanations of our interests in the region and Netanyahu's departure from them. My local Liberal Party campus group (which I'm part of) is overwhelmingly Muslims from the Middle East, especially Pakistan, which helped force the issue for our candidates. I'm now liasoning between them and our local candidate, in part on issues like Gaza.

There's always going to be people who would prefer to posture about how "radical" they are without doing much, and portray what I'm saying as simple "reformism" or whatever, but in virtually every such case what they're actually doing is refusing to engage with power or meaningfully contest it. You don't have to look much further than the alt-right engaging the Republican party to such an extent that a literal fucking neo-Nazi pedo like Fuentes can take a dinner with the presidentual nominee with no internal consequences for either person.
 
Trump has been convicted. Any thoughts? I think it may actually help his reelection chances, or at the very least, not damage them as much as some may hope.
 
It's the correct verdict, but will it end up mattering? I have my doubts.
Trump has been convicted. Any thoughts? I think it may actually help his reelection chances, or at the very least, not damage them as much as some may hope.
It will absolutely NOT help his re-election chances. There is zero benefit to being a convicted felon. There’s no opposition branding even needed when the truth is that damning.

I’ve been following a few election whisperers (who correctly predicted 2020 and 2022). What’s more likely is that conviction puts North Carolina in play for the Democrats.

Modern US presidential elections are very close. The verdict hurts Republicans on the margins. The last two elections were decided by only about 100,000-150,000 total votes among all the battleground states.
 
Last edited:
It will absolutely NOT help his re-election chances. There is zero benefit to being a convicted felon. There’s no opposition branding even needed when the truth is that damning.
My reasoning is that a guilty verdict from an extremely liberal DA from an extremely liberal jury pool lends a lot of credence to his claims. In order to prove the crime he was convicted under (Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, New York Penal Law §175.10) the prosecution has to prove that he falsified business records in the furtherance of another crime. The crime that the DA chose, a violation of election law, seemed like a very political choice to me as opposed to a more prove-able option like accounting fraud/etc.

I think many saw this as a political trial, and the conviction will only affirm those sentiments, especially among his base/right leaning voters (even if I personally disagree)
 
It will absolutely NOT help his re-election chances. There is zero benefit to being a convicted felon. There’s no opposition branding even needed when the truth is that damning.
I'm not so sure. Trump's whole rhetoric was being the anti-establishment and anti-elite candidate. Obviously he's not any of that, but that's the image he portrays himself as, that was his appeal. If he spins this as being persecuted by the corrupt courts or whatever, which he will, at the very least he can hold his base together and give them an underdog story/a convincing narrative. I can't imagine a Republican voter moving away from Trump (if he hasn't yet despite all this), but I can imagine someone on the fence being swayed by Trump's underdog/victim story. I hope I'm wrong but I wouldn't be so cocky. Keep in mind Hillary's overconfidence and evident failure to connect with the voters as well, I see no reason we wouldn't have a repeat of something similar.
 
My reasoning is that a guilty verdict from an extremely liberal DA from an extremely liberal jury pool lends a lot of credence to his claims. In order to prove the crime he was convicted under (Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, New York Penal Law §175.10) the prosecution has to prove that he falsified business records in the furtherance of another crime. The crime that the DA chose, a violation of election law, seemed like a very political choice to me as opposed to a more prove-able option like accounting fraud/etc.
The truth always wins in the long term. You cannot narrative spin out of 34/34 (100%) felony convictions. This was not the judge or the DA; he was convicted by fellow citizens in the exact city he committed the crimes.

I'm not so sure. Trump's whole rhetoric was being the anti-establishment and anti-elite candidate. Obviously he's not any of that, but that's the image he portrays himself as, that was his appeal. If he spins this as being persecuted by the corrupt courts or whatever, which he will, at the very least he can hold his base together and give them an underdog story/a convincing narrative. I can't imagine a Republican voter moving away from Trump (if he hasn't yet despite all this), but I can imagine someone on the fence being swayed by Trump's underdog/victim story. I hope I'm wrong but I wouldn't be so cocky. Keep in mind Hillary's overconfidence and evident failure to connect with the voters as well, I see no reason we wouldn't have a repeat of something similar.
Republican voters do not decide elections. Donald Trump isn't even getting 90% of primary voters since Nikki Haley dropped out. Only 1/4 of the voting population are self-identified Republicans. Elections are decided by which independents show up to vote; not by the fringiest base voters. His hard core base will dig in, but they represent about 35% of the voting electorate at most (the other 10-12% of his voters being "nose-holding" party loyalists).

Re: Hillary Clinton, the Democrats need to mention that this trial outlined crimes that Trump committed in stealing the 2016 election. He paid off Stormy Daniels to prevent this from going public before the election. He would have lost had this scandal came out. That's why he did it!
 

Platinum God n1n1

the real n1n1
is a Tiering Contributor
My reasoning is that a guilty verdict from an extremely liberal DA from an extremely liberal jury pool lends a lot of credence to his claims. In order to prove the crime he was convicted under (Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, New York Penal Law §175.10) the prosecution has to prove that he falsified business records in the furtherance of another crime. The crime that the DA chose, a violation of election law, seemed like a very political choice to me as opposed to a more prove-able option like accounting fraud/etc.

I think many saw this as a political trial, and the conviction will only affirm those sentiments, especially among his base/right leaning voters (even if I personally disagree)
I'll be voting for Trump and none of this impacts my decision for the exact reasons you mentioned.
This trail was a waste of resources for New York, all those tax payer funded resources such as extra cops for blocking off streets around Trump tower and the court house, prosucutors and the DA himself should have been deployed to real problems. Even democrats including the mayor are sick of Alvin Bragg who is responsible for rise in crime
 
This trail was a waste of resources for New York, all those tax payer funded resources such as extra cops for blocking off streets around Trump tower and the court house, prosucutors and the DA himself should have been deployed to real problems.
what are "real problems"? If you consider some breakings of the law as so minor to not prosecute them, then we are on a slippery slope where it becomes hard to draw the line
 

Platinum God n1n1

the real n1n1
is a Tiering Contributor
what are "real problems"? If you consider some breakings of the law as so minor to not prosecute them, then we are on a slippery slope where it becomes hard to draw the line
See below, thats an example of what I am talking about. That is the type of problem our elected officials should focus on to improve quality of life, not spend 6 weeks and millions of dollars and diverted resources to as a way to inflict political damage on a presidential candidate.
Directly to your point, the Alvin Bragg definitely considers "some breakings of the law as so minor to not prosecute them" , see this article.

1717170028950.png
 
I'll be voting for Trump and none of this impacts my decision for the exact reasons you mentioned.
This trail was a waste of resources for New York, all those tax payer funded resources such as extra cops for blocking off streets around Trump tower and the court house, prosucutors and the DA himself should have been deployed to real problems. Even democrats including the mayor are sick of Alvin Bragg who is responsible for rise in crime
Why should people be allowed to break laws with impunity? Why is enforcing the law a waste of resources?
 
I'll be voting for Trump and none of this impacts my decision for the exact reasons you mentioned.
This trail was a waste of resources for New York, all those tax payer funded resources such as extra cops for blocking off streets around Trump tower and the court house, prosucutors and the DA himself should have been deployed to real problems. Even democrats including the mayor are sick of Alvin Bragg who is responsible for rise in crime
Thx for the confession of being a cultist that wants to see Democracy overthrown, really helps to know or reassure why you hate certain minorities in particular.
 
See below, thats an example of what I am talking about. That is the type of problem our elected officials should focus on to improve quality of life, not spend 6 weeks and millions of dollars and diverted resources to as a way to inflict political damage on a presidential candidate.
Directly to your point, the Alvin Bragg definitely considers "some breakings of the law as so minor to not prosecute them" , see this article.

View attachment 637424
aren't you contradicting yourself? If I say "this crime shouldn't be focused on when other crimes are there", it's a statement that can be reverted. Again, it's a slippery slope that you're on
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 2, Guests: 5)

Top