Jump to content
Tywin et al.

U.S. Politics: 22 Trillion Problems But An Unsecured Border Ain’t One

Recommended Posts

I also like the idea that Harris will have a hard time but Clinton, who was far worse, obliterated her opponents with minority voters. 

AA voters do care about the record, but they also care about promises kept, electability and community relationships. The idea Harris can't get there is just bullshit concern trolling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DMC said:

It's not?  Let's review:

She didn't "brag about smoking weed," she was asked if she ever had and she didn't lie.  Also, blaming her specifically for "locking up" weed smokers based on the laws at the time makes absolutely no sense.  This is an objectively unreasonable complaint.

What he's referring to here actually is a reasonable and valid complaint.  It's the AG's office backing the use of cheap labor and horrible rationale for keeping non-violent offenders incarcerated.  She's apologized for this, and was not personally a part of that effort.  To hyperbolize this into "justifying slave labor" is, again, undoubtedly unreasonable.

This complaint is based on this:

Ok, so she tried to pass a bill on sex trafficking in the US Senate and it wasn't perfect.  I'm shocked.  While complaining about this bill is not unreasonable, posing as if she was attacking sex workers - or even that this was an "anti sex trafficking bill" is, because it blatantly ignores reality.

This does have reasonable basis:

I don't think that makes her transphobic, but I understand if others feel differently.

 

To conclude, yeah, the rest of his post IS so unreasonable, excepting one sentence. @Tywin et al. wasn't cherrypicking.  Et al.

Huh, thanks for the links and response.  Have to admit that probably most of what I was basing this off of was the 'hitjob' piece you mentioned before.

Will have to do a bit more reading on the rest, but I stand by the online sex worker ads thing having a predictably bad outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

AA voters do care about the record, but they also care about promises kept, electability and community relationships. The idea Harris can't get there is just bullshit concern trolling. 

Agreed.  The fight is between Booker, Harris, and Biden if he gets in.  No idea how it's gonna shake out, but Harris has a leg up - just got Barbara Lee's endorsement.  That may seem easy based on proximity, but it wasn't.  And it's important within the CBC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

.Will have to do a bit more reading on the rest, 

Count me in on one that will have to do some more reading. The stuff about Gage and Baca and so forth bothers me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, DMC said:

Agreed.  The fight is between Booker, Harris, and Biden if he gets in.  No idea how it's gonna shake out, but Harris has a leg up - just got Barbara Lee's endorsement.  That may seem easy based on proximity, but it wasn't.  And it's important within the CBC.

Also as important - and in contrast to Sanders- she seems to understand that its important to build these alliances and endorsements. Even if her record would make it hard (it probably won't) she's making sure that it is her coalition which matters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shut down of online sites hasn't just hurt sex workers in the US but even those in other countries where said sex work is legal. Maybe I'm misreading your claim on the last page but to suggest it hasn't hurt sex workers is having your head deeply in the ground.

It's not even just sex workers being hurt, single women are now being profiled by certain businesses because of the possibility they might be doing sex work 

My wife and I are pretty sure she was being profiled last week by an Uber driver in Sydney while traveling in daylight. This shit gets done in the name of "stopping trafficking" but it results in reducing women's rights. Everything in the article in the second tweet in that linked thread is spotting a sex worker, not a person in distress. That's not a bug, that's the intent.

And trafficking isn't just about sex work, but victims of trafficking in other industries never get raised as a priority by politicians or anyone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, karaddin said:

Maybe I'm misreading your claim on the last page but to suggest it hasn't hurt sex workers is having your head deeply in the ground.

I assume this is addressed at me (if it's not, sorry for the long reply).  I don't think it's fair to say my head was buried, it's just not something I've looked into much one way or another.

5 minutes ago, karaddin said:

It's not even just sex workers being hurt, single women are now being profiled by certain businesses because of the possibility they might be doing sex work

That's outrageous and infuriating.  But it's also anecdotal, and I don't see how this is any way correlated with the law Harris championed.

9 minutes ago, karaddin said:

This shit gets done in the name of "stopping trafficking" but it results in reducing women's rights.

So what would you have female MCs do?  Because the bill Harris pushed was basically as good as it gets in the male dominated Congress.  I'm seriously asking.  Should she have fought for a better bill, even if it wasn't going to pass?  Is that better or worse?

14 minutes ago, karaddin said:

And trafficking isn't just about sex work, but victims of trafficking in other industries never get raised as a priority by politicians or anyone else. 

I honestly don't know what this means or whom you're referring to.  Please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Sanders is so hosed

 

Something I'm slightly surprised by is that at the moment, as best as I can tell, there isn't a Sanders follow-up candidate.  Someone that was ready to run with Bernie's platform more-or-less.  Even though a lot of folks have moved left here and there like endorsing Medicare for all it seems like most of the other candidates are still kinda acting like mainstream Dems and compared to Bernie's outsiderish role.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel compelled to direct attention to yet another disgraceful, bald faced lie by our lying pos President. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-abe-nobel-peace-prize_n_5c67b7a3e4b033a79942d86d

Not only is the President either lying about the Nobel nomination, or , unable to determine the difference between the leaders of S. Korea and Japan? The article points out that 2017 and 2018 Trump Nobel nominations were determined to be forgeries!!!! Where Nobel officials determined that the same individual "assumed the the identity" of a qualified nominator.

In other words this pos President is trying to steal a Nobel Prize just like he steals elections.

What an embarrassment this imposter to the Presidency is, and oh, by the way Donald, ya aint 6'3" either, your shorter than Obama who measured 6'-1 and a half inches and is clearly taller than your insecure ass in side by side photos eh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say in general, think I've done a pretty good job selling many regulars on this thread on Harris.  Usually volunteer by canvassing or phone banks or stuff.  Considering the reach of this thread, maybe I can be lazy this time?  No?  I shouldn't be a lazy piece of shit?  Bah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Harris has as a rule done a pretty awesome job selling her own qualities. I wasnt all that jazzed about her to start, but I can say I'd be happy to vote for her in a primary, and she's my current personal favorite. (I dont know if she can win the primary, but I'd like her to)

That might change if Beto gets into it or Booker makes a better push. 

It's also nice to not support someone who has a B in their name. Bernie, Beto, Biden, Booker. I confess its hard for me to tell B people apart. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I wasnt all that jazzed about her to start, but I can say I'd be happy to vote for her in a primary, and she's my current personal favorite. (I dont know if she can win the primary, but I'd like her to)

I will gladly take this as progress.

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's also nice to not support someone who has a B in their name. Bernie, Beto, Biden, Booker. I confess its hard for me to tell B people apart. 

This is definitely going to be the on-running easy joke this cycle.  I'm already sick of it.  Another reason for HEY BIDEN DON'T RUN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, DMC said:

I assume this is addressed at me (if it's not, sorry for the long reply).  I don't think it's fair to say my head was buried, it's just not something I've looked into much one way or another.

That's outrageous and infuriating.  But it's also anecdotal, and I don't see how this is any way correlated with the law Harris championed.

So what would you have female MCs do?  Because the bill Harris pushed was basically as good as it gets in the male dominated Congress.  I'm seriously asking.  Should she have fought for a better bill, even if it wasn't going to pass?  Is that better or worse?

I honestly don't know what this means or whom you're referring to.  Please explain.

1) A major hotel chain publishing that it's training it's staff in techniques that are clearly meant to identify sex workers and results in profiling all single women is not an anecdote. My example with the Uber sure, someone saying they were profiled in a hotel sure, but major company training practices are not.

2) They should not have passed the bill, they should not have been looking to pass any bill that will harm a large number of women and undermine the fabric of the internet. And yes, I argue that forcing companies to stop servicing customers globally to suit the law of one country is a major blow to what the internet was supposed to be. Bad action is worse than no action.

3) My point was a general one that people are trafficked into slavery in multiple industries and all of them are terrible, but the only one that gets any attention from the media or politicians is the sex industry. I'm out at the moment and can't dig up the statistics on my phone but I think in Australia the largest industry for forced labour was agriculture or construction or something like that - manual labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

I will gladly take this as progress.

This is definitely going to be the on-running easy joke this cycle.  I'm already sick of it.  Another reason for HEY BIDEN DON'T RUN!

Is Biden the old guy who did creepy things to young women, or is he the one who wrote about young women creepily?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, karaddin said:

1) A major hotel chain publishing that it's training it's staff in techniques that are clearly meant to identify sex workers and results in profiling all single women is not an anecdote. My example with the Uber sure, someone saying they were profiled in a hotel sure, but major company training practices are not.

Agreed.  I was not aware of that.  Was I supposed to be?  Honestly, I'm sorry if you or someone else linked that to me and I missed it, it's totally possible.

23 minutes ago, karaddin said:

2) They should not have passed the bill, they should not have been looking to pass any bill that will harm a large number of women and undermine the fabric of the internet. And yes, I argue that forcing companies to stop servicing customers globally to suit the law of one country is a major blow to what the internet was supposed to be. Bad action is worse than no action.

Disagree here, at least on the first count.  I have yet to see any compelling arguments on how the law will actually harm anybody more than they already were subject to under previous laws.

23 minutes ago, karaddin said:

3) My point was a general one that people are trafficked into slavery in multiple industries and all of them are terrible, but the only one that gets any attention from the media or politicians is the sex industry. I'm out at the moment and can't dig up the statistics on my phone but I think in Australia the largest industry for forced labour was agriculture or construction or something like that - manual labour.

I think there's a significant distinction between forced sex workers and manual labor such as agricultural or construction laborers.  I've spent time with both of the latter examples, and I'm pretty sure it's not so fun for a straight male.

Edited by DMC
It used to say not AS fun instead of not SO fun at the end there. That..suggested offensive things I never meant to suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Triskele said:

Something I'm slightly surprised by is that at the moment, as best as I can tell, there isn't a Sanders follow-up candidate.  Someone that was ready to run with Bernie's platform more-or-less.  Even though a lot of folks have moved left here and there like endorsing Medicare for all it seems like most of the other candidates are still kinda acting like mainstream Dems and compared to Bernie's outsiderish role.  

His group seems to be very young--I mean, I think AOC is his follow-up, she just isn't old enough to run yet.

Sanders may do it this time, who knows. The Dem field is very big this time, but none of them are that impressive except Bernie and Warren. And they have an albatross or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Is Biden the old guy who did creepy things to young women, or is he the one who wrote about young women creepily?

Or is he that old guy that was on CSPAN for 8 years behaving creepily around all women that were very substantially younger than him?  Or...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×