Jump to content
Tywin et al.

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

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

Perhaps Harris's past as a prosecutor will help sway near mythical moderate republicans/centrists interested in law and order to vote for her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DMC - this article

https://www.asianhospitality.com/marriott-trains-half-a-million-employees-on-preventing-human-trafficking/

was linked in the second tweet of the Twitter thread I posted. Your acceptance of it as a bad thing will of course be contingent on whether you think most sex work is trafficking or view single women in hotels being assessed as potential sex workers as being ok.

Share this post


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

Your acceptance of it as a bad thing will of course be contingent on whether you think most sex work is trafficking or view single women in hotels being assessed as potential sex workers as being ok.

That's not fair at all.  My "acceptance" here pertains to Harris' role in anything that is any way related to what you're referring to.  And it's not.

Thanks for the link though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

Yea, Gabbard is an Assadist, and she's also a huge fan of Modi, who is a hard right authoritarian. She's pure trash. She doesn't care about Syrian civilians, she loves dead muslims. 

Mostly true. She gets weepy at Christians being persecuted for their beliefs but doesn’t care about dead foreign Muslims in the Middle East(who make up the most victims of terrorism)  But she’s anti-interventionalist, so people like her.

15 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

She's also homophobic & anti choice. Horrible person and horrible candidate.

To be fair, her voting record on LGBTQ issues is fine, she is homophobic in part, but she’d keep government out of it. and she is pro-life, but shes said wouldn’t have government be the one to intervene on the matter on whether or not a woman could have one.

15 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

Oh, and anyone, let alone a politician, that cites that the syphilitic dick sore that is Jimmy Dore, who is so ignorant he had no clue what the hell the Kurds were doing in Syria or the autonomous region they set up in northern syria, all while trying to pass himself off as some expert and bringer of truth, and also praises that white supremacist Tucker Carlson, should be ignored.

 Fuck Dore. His praise for Carlson is disgusting. It totally misses the point on why Carlson has attacked capitalism. It has little to do with valid complaints against it but rests upon bigotry; Carlson dislikes a Capitalist system that allows social views that differ from his to be expressed and allows non-whites to “steal” the jobs of perfectly awesome white  men. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the future lawsuits in response to 45's declaration of national emergency, I don't understand why the opposition seems to be conceding that since the word emergency is not defined in the National Emergency Act, 45 gets to declare anything he wants to be an emergency.  The word emergency surely has been defined somewhere in federal laws, regulations, or case law (in something connected to FEMA most likely).  Judges can use that definition, wherever and whatever it may be, as persuasive evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours 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.

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.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. The bill did nothing but hurt sex-workers who weren’t abused and  those who actually are. You bring up an interesting point on how this sort of trafficking does often get far more attention those other forms human trafficking. I think it must be recognized decreasing sex-trafficking isn’t the forefront of the minds of many(not all-I’ve seen too many feminists come out in support such measures to think otherwise) who push such measures. Decreasing the level of prostitution is. They don’t care if a lot of sex-workers point out they need these sites to warn other escorts  and learn of potential threats.  They don’t care about instances of such Jane doe from Atlanta knew not to see dangerous brute and thief looking to meet by reading a review of him on an escort site that was written by an escort in New York. They don’t care if it’ll push women into the bad streets of their cities and towns- because that’s literally the only place they could go-where they’ll be hounded by police and suspect for being assaulted. They don’t care if such measures increase the financial instability of the people-the very reason many got into in the first place. These women are just whores to them. Prostitution is bad. It needs to be stopped.  Everything else is a topping for them they could do with or without.  

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kalbear said:

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. 

How is Clinton far worse to people of color than Harris is like to be in your mind? 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Here's a good article on the issue of Bernie supporting racism (it's not true, if anything you could argue he has a blindspot and thinks that by solving issues of class, this too will fix issues of race--a very traditional Marxist take. I think this is one of the most legitimate criticisms of Marxism). 

As for supporting bad people, yeah, I don't like it either. But we could go through other candidates (like Hillary and how she shielded a man in her campaign from sexual misconduct allegations) and show these issues are true everywhere. For Bernie, he did some moral gymnastics to explain why this was an okay thing to do (you need democrats in office to protect abortion rights), but I am dissatisfied with this reasoning too. I'm sure Mello's constituents, I think his support for regulating abortion rights has more to do with his electability in that area, but nonetheless, he does not support women's rights.

I think that if you run someone is who pure in their political philosophy like AOC, she wouldn't win in Omaha. She wouldn't win in a lot of places, but she'd stick to her guns. When you get to the presidential level, these people begin making concessions against their values. What will come out about Warren (who is my choice)? Her Republican roots are already being dug up, and I'm sure she'll have connections to things I find abhorrent. I don't know what to do about this though.

But, I will say, the argument that Bernie supports racism in some way doesn't resonate with me. To him, the working class is the working class--he isn't arguing for the traditionally white working class. Bernie was the only candidate I've ever heard speak out about police brutality and come firmly down on the issue that modern police are really a problem.

It is interesting that Sanders is so associated with whiteness. The article I linked talks about that, but it's an image he will nonetheless carry and be unable to shake. I think he'd be great for the country, but I do not know if he'd win. I think moderate Dems are still angry with him for so many various reasons, that they would vote third party if he got the nomination. 

Kamala Harris is someone you can demonstrate as hurting people of color. This prosecutorial past of hers really worries me, but I think the partnership between prosecutors and the police is a particularly important (and scary) issue that needs dealt with. I may never vote for a former prosecutor (unless it was a prosecutor vs. Trump). 

I don't see how democrats reconcile these issues. I've been a member of the party since 2005, and I'm now viewed as a Bernie Bro outsider who is hijacking the party. These in-fights will continue to fester at the worst possible time.

Listen I get you personally don’t buy his reasoning. But I feel you’re still being far more more lenient to him than he deserves. If a Democratic mayoral candidate was against the concept of a minimum wage but was left-wing in most other aspects would Sanders support them? I don’t think so. I think he would very much oppose the mayoral candidate being endorsed by a democratic politician even if it meant a temporary gain in power by the party In fact I see him and a lot of his die hard supporters fully willing to(brave yourself) compromise when the stuff that they have give to give could not typically affect working-class white men in a direct way. Abortion rights, LGBTQ protections, voting rights for minorities, these are things they’re willing to let go. Now, what’s really infuriating from some of his supporters that do this-they still say they’re the “true” progressives. They’ll support Gabbard who needlessly flirts with  fascists, advocates giviing  non-Muslim refugees precedent, and pro-life, and trounce out as a true beacon of liberalism, but yeah they’re still the “pure” ones. To be clear I do believe Sanders to be the person the Dems could nominate. I did so in when he was running in 2015, I believe it now with current contenders looking as they are now. But the man isn’t the utter paragon and perfect candidate that a lot of his supporters hold him up as such. I was actually really irritated when certain alt-media outlets I tended visit refused to run a negative story about Bernie that would be pursuant to his electibility. For example, a video of him saying Castro was well like by his people. I have little doubt Sanders would have easily lost Florida. Acknowledging his personal flaws are important. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Listen I get you personally don’t buy his reasoning. But I feel you’re still being far more more lenient to him than he deserves. If a Democratic mayoral candidate was against the concept of a minimum wage but was left-wing in most other aspects would Sanders support them? I don’t think so. I think he would very much oppose the mayoral candidate being endorsed by a democratic politician even if it meant a temporary gain in power by the party In fact I see him and a lot of his die hard supporters fully willing to(brave yourself) compromise when the stuff that they have give to give could not typically affect working-class white men in a direct way. Abortion rights, LGBTQ protections, voting rights for minorities, these are things they’re willing to let go. Now, what’s really infuriating from some of his supporters that do this-they still say they’re the “true” progressives. They’ll support Gabbard who needlessly flirts with  fascists, advocates giviing  non-Muslim refugees precedent, and pro-life, and trounce out as a true beacon of liberalism, but yeah they’re still the “pure” ones. To be clear I do believe Sanders to be the person the Dems could nominate. I did so in when he was running in 2015, I believe it now with current contenders looking as they are now. But the man isn’t the utter paragon and perfect candidate that a lot of his supporters hold him up as such. I was actually really irritated when certain alt-media outlets I tended visit refused to run a negative story about Bernie that would be pursuant to his electibility. For example, a video of him saying Castro was well like by his people. I have little doubt Sanders would have easily lost Florida. Acknowledging his personal flaws are important. 

I see what you're saying, and I think this is a very legitimate criticism of a classical Marxist. "If we fix working relations, everything else will get fixed." I disagree for the exact reasons you state here--and you really did a great job of narrowing the big issue--that more often than not, the policies accepted support [white male] workers while the policies compromised always come at the expend of POC and women. You cannot consider class alone. And I don't mean to say he is a paragon--except to his own worldview. I think he believes "class fixes all" and he sticks to that. He has plenty of issues, and he is not a pure candidate. 

I look at AOC and she does such a better job at keeping issues of race and gender in line with issues of class. She's younger too. Hell, when the neo-Marxists were getting the Frankfurt School going in New York in 1935, what was Bernie? Like 40 years old? 

I think it's interesting that Bernie (likely) has a fanbase in the alt-right. This is deeply troubling for me. I don't know how true it is that his diehard supporters are now alt-right, but if it is true, that's a real problem. The flip side of this, people like me get lumped into that group. It's the media's inability to deal outside of binary extremes. 

I'll be interested to see how things shake out. I like Warren the best right now (I've always liked her the best, I think). If she isn't viable, and Harris is, then fine. I would even come around on Harris if she talked honestly and openly about her prosecutorial past. I saw Bill Maher angrily say she shouldn't do this to our candidates. "I hate Harris because she prosecuted people, when she used to be a prosecutor." I disagree with him. I think the issues about prosecution, people of color, the police, and incarceration are real problems that destroy entire groups of people's lives. This isn't about purity, this is about being accountable and progressive (in the true sense of the word). Gabbard is no progressive. She is borderline a Republican. Bernie needs to honestly assess himself and address the problems with people he supported. 

Who knows though? Maybe one of these more unknown ones will take the party by storm!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Smollett attack story has gotten quite weird and it now seems possible that it was a staged attack though I'd say it's too early to draw any conclusions.  But if that is the case that it was staged I expect it to be irresistable fodder for the right.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Triskele said:

This Smollett attack story has gotten quite weird and it now seems possible that it was a staged attack though I'd say it's too early to draw any conclusions.  But if that is the case that it was staged I expect it to be irresistable fodder for the right.  

Fucking Millenials. Never willing to put in the proper amount of effort.

Share this post


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

This Smollett attack story has gotten quite weird and it now seems possible that it was a staged attack though I'd say it's too early to draw any conclusions.  But if that is the case that it was staged I expect it to be irresistable fodder for the right.  

Based on CNN, it's almost certainly staged:

Quote

Two law enforcement sources with knowledge of the investigation tell CNN that Chicago Police believe actor Jussie Smollett paid two men to orchestrate an assault on him that he reported late last month.

Smollett denies playing a role in his attack, according to a statement from his attorneys.

The men, who are brothers, were arrested Wednesday but released without charges Friday after Chicago police cited the discovery of "new evidence."

The sources told CNN the two men are now cooperating fully with law enforcement.

And yes, Breitbart is absolutely loving this; they have an entire section on it which includes a lot more details than CNN does and also has the reaction of various politicians and celebrities (apparently, Senator Cory Booker tried to push for legislation in response to this "attack"). It's like a second Christmas in one winter for them.

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Fucking Millenials. Never willing to put in the proper amount of effort.

In a way, this was actually too much effort with too little thought -- many people didn't believe it simply because it was so theatrical. I think he didn't fully understand the extent of the surveillance in the area or the ability of law enforcement to trace the purchase history of the props.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either it was staged or whites have figured out a new fool proof way to muddy the waters: simply shout the victims of your terrorism staged it and you are just an employee. Whether or not it is ever trues is immaterial to its success as a astrategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Based on CNN, it's almost certainly staged:

And yes, Breitbart is absolutely loving this; they have an entire section on it which includes a lot more details than CNN does and also has the reaction of various politicians and celebrities (apparently, Senator Cory Booker tried to push for legislation in response to this "attack"). It's like a second Christmas in one winter for them.

In a way, this was actually too much effort with too little thought -- many people didn't believe it simply because it was so theatrical. I think he didn't fully understand the extent of the surveillance in the area or the ability of law enforcement to trace the purchase history of the props.

Based on the fact that he pointed out a camera to the cops where the 'attack' occurred, but it was pointed the wrong way, I think it's likely that they actually staged a fake fight, which is even more crazy, that he would risk the possibility that the two 'attackers' could be ID'd or at least their race determined from this footage, or that his choreography and acting skills would be sufficient for the two giant bodybuilders to inflict so little damage and leave w/out robbing him, taking his phone or his sandwich.  It will be interesting if the FBI does or doesn't tie him or the brothers to the letter he received.

Share this post


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

Either it was staged or whites have figured out a new fool proof way to muddy the waters: simply shout the victims of your terrorism staged it and you are just an employee. Whether or not it is ever trues is immaterial to its success as a astrategy.

But that's the most hilarious part of this and also the most likely reason it was staged: the two brothers who are claiming that he paid them to stage this are bodybuilders from Nigeria who have worked with him before. Regardless of whether the brothers are saying the truth or not, "whites" have nothing to do with this attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Some Major Disruption, But Mostly For Half The Population
“Medicare for America” resembles some more skeletal proposals that have been in circulation for the past year or so ― from analyst and Shadowproof contributor Jon Walker, Yale University political scientist Jacob Hacker and the Center for American Progress (CAP). Those last two are not coincidental: DeLauro and Schakowsky worked with Hacker and CAP experts as they crafted the bill, which the lawmakers introduced in December.

The CAP role might rankle those progressives who consider the think-tank too timid or protective of the Democratic Party establishment. But Walker is well-known on social media for his sharp progressive posts, while Hacker is famous for his role developing, and then fighting for, a strong public option in the Affordable Care Act. All of them have long records of supporting government-run insurance, as do DeLauro and Schakowsky.

That political pedigree may explain why, for all the talk about minimizing disruption, “Medicare for America” would actually disrupt quite a lot. For starters, it would automatically enroll everybody who does not have employer-sponsored insurance into the newly constructed government program. That’s basically half the U.S. population, including people on Medicaid or Medicare as well as those who currently buy coverage on their own, whether directly from insurers or through the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges.

 

2 Liberal Democrats Are Promoting A Twist On ‘Medicare For All’
It would create a big government plan but keep a role for private insurance.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/deluaro-schakowsky-medicare-for-america-all_n_5c672cc6e4b05c889d1f4bc9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, congrats the to truthers for possibly getting one right. Good luck with your next staged/false flag crusade for the next pipe bomb sent to the media or leaders on the left, violent right-wing rally (endorsed by police) that is somehow antifa or a beaten/dead victim's fault, school shooting, or whatever horrific incident that guns, a right-winger, or whatever nut or nut policy that you choose to support. You are truly on the Right side of history.

eta- thank goodness this news came out for you all, so that you didn't have enough of a chance to embarrass yourself with the next AOC smear (like "employing" her boyfriend -- as if the GOP has a leg to stand of w.r.t nepotism (and it isn't in this case)).

Edited by Week

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The winning world tour continues where European leaders were so overcome by the sheer implausibility of the amount of winning that they forgot to applaud Pence's speech. Which was LIT.

https://splinternews.com/europe-treats-members-of-team-trump-with-the-disdain-th-1832686697

Ignore the fact that the party in power of all 3 branches of government (aside from the HoR) lies with such frequency and impunity that they think their own shit smells good. Which allows them to focus on the RULL issues like a WALL (sorry, bollards -- hard to keep up with the goal posts moving at a breakneck pace for the win!) and a single instance of a falsely reported crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Teng Ai Hui said:

Regarding the future lawsuits in response to 45's declaration of national emergency, I don't understand why the opposition seems to be conceding that since the word emergency is not defined in the National Emergency Act, 45 gets to declare anything he wants to be an emergency.  The word emergency surely has been defined somewhere in federal laws, regulations, or case law (in something connected to FEMA most likely).  Judges can use that definition, wherever and whatever it may be, as persuasive evidence.

If it's not defined in law anywhere then the definition defaults to the dictionary. To whit:

Quote

Merriam-Webster online

emer·gen·cy | \ i-ˈmər-jən(t)-sē

1: an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action

2: an urgent need for assistance or relief

It can't just be because Trump says it is. In the declaration of an emergency, the declaration should have to show how it satisfies one or other definition in a somewhat objective sense. Most of the time, it's clear to anyone with half a brain that a situation is an emergency, like a devastating hurricane.

I guess this case will be where case law provides a definition specifically for the declaration of a national emergency that gives the president special powers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the 2020 field im still in the undecided camp. I do feel Biden and Bernie are not the best candidates due to a sort of ("they had their moment already") feeling, especially with Joe who passed on the shot when it was there for him in '16', plus Bernie is now in his 80's isnt he?  Anyways I will take some time to hear from and read about the rest of the growing field before I decide my pick.

Share this post


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

×