American Politics Discussion Thread

[Bacchus]

No worries, I was just surprised at you going all Cathy Newman, knowing that it isn't your normal way to engage in discussion.

And to be absolutely clear, I have no problems understanding why a person wrongly accused of something would have a very strong self-defensive desire to purge everything he can from the view of the police. This desire doesn't make the act right, though, it remains, as you well put it, "stupid, impulsive shit". And my point about destruction of evidence is not accused-specific. Destruction of evidence, the act in itself, by whoever perpetrated, is an assault on justice. There can't possibly be a 'right' to this act, because it's entirely malicious. Now, there could be a defense, you seem to point towards affect, and I am very open to this idea. I also entirely agree that not only police have no general right to assistance in their work from suspects, the suspects have various limited rights to hinder the investigation, because the interests of an investigation are not necessarily the interests of justice. Preservation of evidence, however, really is an interest of justice.

[wetbandit]

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.

I am tempted to sympathize with this sentiment, and believe it to be likely accurate on an anecdotal basis, but it's an issue for which there should be reliable data on which to base a conclusion.  I'm sure there is some reliable data out there.  I don't think they are at a breaking point, at least where I am.  I know the local bench provided some data to us at a recent event about their case load and how they get funding.  That said, legal institutions are notoriously slow adopters of technology and I believe that newer technology has enabled some courts to more efficiently adjudicate certain cases.  

The main problem, to which you allude, is the potential erosion of trust in problem-solving institutions insofar as the delay to get a trial date or resolution in some cases because of how long it can take.  That can be a problem which frustrates people.  Some of that delay has to do with statutory notice requirements.  Others because there's not enough courtrooms and judges to hear trials in an expedient manner.  I'm obviously speaking only to my experience here in California and to a very limited extent, the US. 

Aside from delays, based on my experience, I tend to think that the general public's frustration with the legal system stems from a lack of basic understanding of how the legal system works and what can actually be accomplished through using it.  Maybe that's a side effect if the more wealth -> more litigation proposition is true.

[MJW (ya that one)]

If I were still following politics I would move MT back to likely R because the dumb governor failing to make the June debate might give him the jolt to quit.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Well I cannot help myself

Solid: Call it
Likely: This team wins, but I cannot call it. 
Lean: Clear edge.
Tossup: Everything else. Due to the low number of competitive seats there isn't enough room for the "tilt" rating. If I did the House or state legislators there would be. 

It's time to no longer to give the challenging party the benefit of the doubt for recruiting expect NM and KS. NM for the seat becoming open recently and KS because I'm sure Kobach is not accounting in order to induce other moderate GOP members into the race to split the vote. I'm actually pretty sure that this plan will succeed but he'll hold the seat for the GOP because he'll face a weak Bi-Partisan+Pro-Choice candidate in the general which will hand him the seat for life (2026 should be a midterm with and DEM President and by 2032 the GOP will be shut out of the poltical process so a vote for any Republican is a vote for an empty seat with a "no" sign on its desk.) 

Every change from last time should explain itself expect IA. In IA the current DEM frontrunner released an internal  poll showing her down by 25% and she got DQed from her House race primary because of fraudulent signatures. MN has failed to recruit yet but I cannot call it because Trump+McMuffin got more votes than Clinton in my state.  

For fun I've guessed who would win the tossups. It's too dependent on what could happen later and subjective feelings to be serious but I can make a guess for a fun online post.   I'm very confident in guessing CO and NC. AZ feels like a pure tossup but I give it to D because not giving the challenging party the benefit of the doubt is a huge boon for the GOP on the rest of the map (MT, KY, IA and AR vs just NH and VA).

   

[MJW (ya that one)]

As expected Kobach declared. Now that there's only one state that doesn't depend on recruitment (NM) I'm cutting it.

TX has someone who can raise a lot of money and in NC some random state senator got a polling lead already (!) and the incumbent will take damage do to a dumb primary challenge.

VA GOP got someone who despite losing an R+3 district due to a scandal is a media magnet and can do something. It's obvious Warner is running (ads) but it's likely he'll face a primary challenge. With the DEM-VA scandal and overextension when they win the VA House and Senate (new maps) he's got a snowball's chance in hell.

This is my first prediction that doesn't guess too much on recruitment to be silly.

   

[MJW (ya that one)]

Now KY has a candidate it goes from Solid to Likely R.

CO and NC keep their Tilt Ratings. Due to the "not giving the challenging party the benefit of the doubt on recruiting" GOP gets a free pass in MT which still inflates their chances, so AZ stays too.

[DaveV]

Three things that aren't being said enough in the whole "Trump is a racist" conversation:

1. He's getting plenty of credit for his racism, but not nearly enough for his misogyny. It's no accident that his four targets are all female: nothing bugs Donny Boy like a woman who doesn't know her place.

2. There's way too little pushback against Trump's thesis that Criticizing Trump = Hating our country and Chanting racist slogans along with Trump = loving our country.

3. I'm appalled at the level of support Trump continues to enjoy among Republicans. Apparently all Republicans must now subscribe to the belief that Trump is not only the greatest president in the history of history, but the greatest president who could possibly be imagined. In my view, he's a deeply flawed man who has advanced the Republican cause on certain fronts, and set it back dramatically on others, and his faults outweigh his benefits by a substantial amount. I've been unable to vote Republican since the party became unequivocally the Party of Trump in 2018.

[Gavagai]

In respect to 3: Trump is the first Republican leader who was able to deliver at least something to his voters since Reagan. No wonder he is so overwhelmingly popular. People are sick of situations when they vote supposed Republicans in power and absolutely nothing happens. Just very recently they were not even able to abolish Obamacare with majorities in both Houses. This pre-Trump Republican party simply had no reason to exist.
And also he is no racist and no sexist and very obviously so, this is why his supporters don't see him as such. Everyone agrees that he has flaws, like any man, and he is not the most ideal president by far. But, well, the only hero we deserve, apparently.

[darrelljs]

Bush cut taxes deeper and wider. I'm not sure what else Trump has done that could be identified as "Reagan" Republican.

Darrell

[Gavagai]

Bush cut taxes deeper and wider.  I'm not sure what else Trump has done that could be identified as "Reagan" Republican.

Darrell

Deregulation and judges. In respect to taxes - numbers are much less important than certain structural changes in tax code. E. g. the fact that federal tax deduction from state taxes is now capped is possibly the single most important thing about his tax reform. Also, lowering the corporate tax is very important and this is something Bush never touched.
(By the way, here is a fine example of the extent to which the public is clueless about policy issues. Wikipedia claims that lowering corporate tax didn't help business much... and cite the opinions of CEOs of large corporations as evidence. Nevermind that these people are the main beneficiaries of high nominal corporate tax rates: large corporations have better tools to optimize corporate tax than their smaller competitors, hence high tax rate gives them a comparative advantage.)