American Politics Discussion Thread

[Ilios]

Still, if the quote is all he has to say on 'why Trump won', it's massively oversimplified and incorrect. For one, the main problem for unemployment wasn't automation but outsourcing.

That's not all he's saying. A.I. and automation will render millions of jobs in transportation, retail and services obsolete. Have a look at his website, educate yourself.

[Gavagai]

Switching topics slightly, Andrew Yang anyone?  This quote in particular was the clearest articulation of the 2016 election I've read:

His "three pillars" is a very typical example of how modern American liberals live in a lalaland. His program is premised on a fantastic picture of the world and has nothing to do with the most urgent problems America currently has. Here is the central one: the US tries to sustain a particularly inefficient version of the welfare state and global military presence... without VAT. Currently, the budget deficit is growing despite unprecedented economic growth which is pretty pathological. VAT or doing something with government expenses is the real choice which the nation faces and it is a very serious one: both options are very painful politically. Instead of discussing this, people waste time on popular ideas like Medicare for all or new and additional taxes on "the rich" which do nothing to address underlying structural problems.

[darrelljs]

That's quite true.  If anything makes me a single issue voter its the deficit.  I voted for Obama in 2008 primarily because he seemed to sincerely want to save our children from the "mountain of debt", then watched him rack up $5 trillion in debt.  Granted he was dealing with a pretty bad recession but he presided over another $2 trillion in his second term.

Darrell

[wetbandit]

"In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances , the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away. Ultimately , the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities".
This often quoted paragraph sums up the spirit of the report perfectly. Notice how in the second sentence the word "government" gets dropped and we have just "Russians" which really removes from the claim all kind of teeth. However, "government" comes back in the last sentence, so an inattentive reader may fail to notice this little detail. And what the fuck "receptive" means? It can mean anything, from a polite decline of "we will call you back" type to enthusiastic acceptance. This is why Mueller would never want to bring anything like that report to a court. He does not really have anything on Trump except colorful adjectives and suggestive hints.

Can you explain your reasoning which supports your conclusion that is bolded?

There is, arguably, something nefarious in cooperating with a foreign government during a political campaign. There is nothing nefarious at all in cooperating with foreign citizens during a political campaign.

I think this is a very uncharitable interpretation, at best.  "Link" is specifically described in the previous sentence as "between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government."

And yet, the third sentence specifically concludes that the investigation didn't establish coordination or a conspiracy.  Which seems to prove whatever point you are trying to make.

[wetbandit]

This comment demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal framework under which Mueller operated and chose to be constrained by.

There is no contradiction between that claim and my comment. The "report" is a political document masquerading as a legal one. There is no option to contest it in a formal setting. For example, a substantial part of the evidence presented in the report is interrogations of witnesses... who are never going to be publicly cross-examined by representatives of defense. It means that investigators had full freedom to frame the interrogations in such a way that they obtain desired results. If you think that "pols and pundits" can supersede cross-examinations then... I really hope you don't seriously mean this. Right now everyone treats the results of these interrogations as hard evidence but in fact, they can be thrown away as worthless. This is the consequences of confusion between legal and political texts.

Yes, there is.  I think Bacchus engaged you with this and I don't want to beat a dead horse speaking on a similar path.

Gavagai
Bacchus, the analogy with the civil process does not work because the parties have no reason to distrust the court if they are in the right. However, if someone was wrongly accused of a crime, his general distrust to the law enforcement system is very reasonable, I believe. Your argument amounts to the claim that we need laws which make the job of the police easier. I hope, I don't need to explain why I am unsympathetic.

You've never been in front of a judge with 1300 cases on his docket, 32 on his 9am calendar, and a speaking engagement at 12:00pm.

[ipecac]

Still, if the quote is all he has to say on 'why Trump won', it's massively oversimplified and incorrect. For one, the main problem for unemployment wasn't automation but outsourcing.

That's not all he's saying. A.I. and automation will render millions of jobs in transportation, retail and services obsolete. Have a look at his website, educate yourself.

I had a look, and I can't see any serious solution to any actual serious problem.

[Bacchus]

You've never been in front of a judge with 1300 cases on his docket, 32 on his 9am calendar, and a speaking engagement at 12:00pm.

Incidentally, this is another very real and completely ignored problem, in US, but also everywhere. Expansion of general wealth has led, quite expectedly, to a massive increase in litigation. More property — more disputes. Somehow this was a massive surprise to everyone in the developed world, and the justice systems are generally far past breaking points throughout the West. Nobody cares, it's not in the news, no-one is campaigning on a platform of "Justice for all" because everyone is under impression that it's already there and faring quite alright.

As for Andrew Yang, the way he identifies one of the major issues is quite on point, his solutions, however, are.... literally nothing to do with the problem? The solution seems to be "we need to put everyone on welfare, because people are obsolete". This is some fourth-grader shit. The trick with automation is smooth transition, not amelioration of negatives -- there are no long-term negatives to automation, it does not obsolete people, it makes them more productive and opens new opportunities. The question, if anything, is how do we deal with costs of adjustment.

[Bacchus]

You are saying that if you are unfairly accused of a crime then it is your duty to assist the police by preserving the evidence for their use.

This is not at all what I'm saying. I said, quite clearly, that destruction of evidence, regardless of the underlying facts, is an assault on justice. You offer no counter-argument to this, and indeed I can't see what one could be. I did not make a claim on duty to preserve evidence (for whatever use), much less to render any assistance to the police. Your objection seems to be that, regardless that destruction of evidence undermines justice, any sanction for such destruction would disadvantage the innocent and advantage the police who, in your view, need no advantaging. This is a balance of interests argument, on which I have nothing to say -- indeed, I quite clearly said that such an argument needs to be made, a balance needs to be struck. It may well be that, in a particular context, deliberate destruction of evidence by wrongdoers is, pragmatically, the last thing we should worry about, which would be reflected, say, in the exceedingly high bar we set in terms of culpability and standard of proof before any sanction is inflicted. But no balance of interests considerations will ever change the fact that destruction of evidence undermines justice for any definition of justice that incorporates anything like due process considerations.

To clarify, to get from I am saying to what you allege I said, you need to:
* Equivocate between a duty to refrain from doing something and a duty to do something
* Equivocate between a normative assessment and the practical consequences of some imagined sanction, which was not even discussed
* Assume that the practical consequences in every case are to the advantage of the police, even if the evidence in question is exculpatory
* Equivocate between the justice system as a whole and the police, as if your own counsel, the court and the jury make no independent use of evidence

Just what the fuck?

[Gavagai]

* Equivocate between a duty to refrain from doing something and a duty to do something

I understand the difference, I just do not believe it is relevant in that particular case.

* Equivocate between a normative assessment and the practical consequences of some imagined sanction, which was not even discussed

You are saying that the interest of law-enforcement in preserving evidence should be a factor when we determine the rights of the accused. You are not saying that this factor necessarily outweighs all other considerations, so it is possible that we could still believe that at least under some circumstances the accused has the right to destroy evidence even after we account for this factor. I get it but I have not directly engaged with this aspect of your argument because I am generally skeptical about this balance-of-interests approach and not prepared to discuss it in that case and in that setting.

* Assume that the practical consequences in every case are to the advantage of the police, even if the evidence in question is exculpatory

I believe that it is generally to the advantage of the police. Still, a useful correction.

* Equivocate between the justice system as a whole and the police, as if your own counsel, the court and the jury make no independent use of evidence

I think it is usually reasonable for the unfairly accused person not to make this fine distinction.

Just what the fuck?

This is a complicated debate and I did not have much time on hand yesterday. It was important for me to make clear my position that it is incredibly unfair towards the accused to force him to cooperate with the police in any way in case the accusation was wrongful. A person who found himself in such a situation, cannot be expected to keep his cool and put the trust in the process, he should have a right to do stupid, impulsive shit. Dealing with the consequences of this shit is the responsibility of those who have put him in a desperate place in the first place, not his own.
All considerations beyond articulating this position, like more meta-level debates about how we determine rights and duties in the criminal process at all, were unimportant to me at that moment. If it looked liked me dismissing or distorting your arguments, I regret that.

[Gavagai]

@Bacchus. To sum up... As I understand, from your perspective it looked like I have used a distorted and simplified version of your argument as a foil to promote my position on a neighboring but separate issue, putting words into your mouth in the process. Sorry, was not my intention.