US Politics: RIP EHK FYVM GOP

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, The Mother of The Others said:

So the debates featured awesome podiums.  See through, futuristic, lit up when someone had the talking conch.   Dems enjoy a clear edge over conservatives in the podium sciences.   The candidates were not as transparent.   Well, Jay was.   He just don't like Trump.  Harris wasn't.   It's a Hillary-ish calculated thing from her---   After you get past the obvious Dem issues, and you start asking yourself what stance she'd take on the kinds of issues that'd actually crop up and have to be dealt with, you realize you have no idea how she'd come down on Anything, in any way.   On purpose.  She's keeping her flock from splitting off, by not being anything other than a symbolic presence, free of specifics, and an angry one.   That bussing shot at oldman Biden was much more "manufactured" than the border crisis- - Biden has always tried, and has always been on the right side of history.  The bussing he was against was of kids from better school districts into worse......and America still agrees with him to this day on that.  You know, the oh so progressive America of now.   So, it was bullshit divisive shit from the OG Bullshit Party, dividing Biden's flock while keeping her own intact by revealing nothing of political identity herself.   Because it's about winning.  And that's all.  Nothing more.  Unfortunately.   It's not about governing, certainly.  As we've seen over the last couple decades.   She did electrify the womens, though, upon occasion, I noticed.  That's telling.   Looks like she's getting the better writers, the sharper tricks squad.

Cory was my guy, though.  First time I'd seen him.  Liked the way he took over the stage and other people's talking time.  Very presidential.   And bald, but in the way that works.  Like, asskicking bald.  I also like the way his answers were all equally intense, no matter what he was talking about.  He'd be just as deadly serious whether the question was about life and death stuff or the possibility of a 90210 reunion:  "I find that question hurtful.  Having been raised near the sewers I know when something smells, and 90210 absolutely reeked."

Hickenlooper came off as surprisingly sane, so of course he's out of the running.  Not with the times.   And was it him or a second guy who kept saying, "I've already DONE all the things the rest of these people are only talking about doing"?   Yeah.  He's done.  Accomplishments aren't going to be popular on that stage.  It only gets in the way of hardcore unicorning, everyone else's sport of choice.

Bernie is promising Trump level changes.  He's here to clean up the swamp too.   He defines the swamp as megacorporations, not the District of Columbia, is the only difference.    The Potus is only one job slot, though.   I doubt Bernie would make any more headway against his swamp than Trump has against his.   And Warren just wants all sorts of things.   She does a better job in person of avoiding that loon sound, unlike Bernie who loons it hard and deep, with gusto.   But the totality of Warren is so inescapably nuts.   I don't know which of them should bow out so the other can double up on supporters.   But the two of them should probably thumb wrestle to figure it out.  Bernie might want to watch her off hand to make sure he doesn't get scalped.  

The author Maryann was charmingly drunk sounding, or maybe that's a debate style in the South that I'm not culturally woke to.   Kind of witchy-bitter in the way she talked about love.   Struck me as an accurate depiction of a random Democrat pulled up on stage and given a microphone to vent their post-2016 mindblown paranoia.    Did anyone else notice how Tulsi Gabbart wasn't allowed to speak for like more than an hour?   I hear she's associated with some kind of cult in her past, but that might just be hearsay, and she's hot.  So I blame the moleman, Chuck Todd, who is the bad kind of bald, because his hairs have all abandoned him to escape the highly concentrated evil in broadcasting he represents, each hair pulling in a random direction in its desperate attempt to find a better place, a more pleasant existence elsewhere.   I remember a time when he could legitimately lay claim to the term Journalist, too.  That makes his weasel turn all the more sad.

There were more candidates.   But they've all disappeared from my recollection like Bubbas receding into the mist.   There was that guy who pledged to undo the environmental damage as the top priority.   But you know what?   Everybody then raised their hands to say they'd do Obamacare II The Sequel for illegal immigrants.  Which was like..... what are we even looking at this party for then?   They just lost the election in unison.    I mean talk about oblivious.    And what a letdown!  It was the equivalent of when pro wrestlers put on a great 30 minute match.....and then someone comes out from backstage to ruin the ending by delivering a chair shot to both of them.  Again, I blame Chuck Todd.    Rachel Maddow made me chuckle a couple times, though, oddly improving my opinion of her.  Overall, it was a good time, both nights, moreso than you'd expect from a non-debate format for a debate.   Party on, Provda!

I fundamentally disagree with vast swathes of your post, but it was pretty great nonetheless. 10/10 would read again.

I too groaned when they all held up their hands on the healthcare for immigrants question. I'm most annoyed at the moderators and the DNC for letting the question be asked. What a stupid fucking decision. Like, I'm on board for doing it. But admitting that brown people deserve healthcare too is something best done in private or after the fact if you want to win elections. Stating it as a goal does nothing to make it a reality and makes it infinitely more difficult to accomplish when Fox decides to start running attack ads in between their Stormfront recruitment segments.

I mean it's not the end of the world, but it's just a totally unforced error. Who the fuck vets these questions? I thought MSNBC was supposed to be the Democrat shills. Someone needs tell those dumbasses to stop pretending to be real journalists, nobody cares.

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, The Mother of The Others said:

The bussing he was against was of kids from better school districts into worse......and America still agrees with him to this day on that.

No, it was pretty much, had black kids to white schools the majority of the time. Given white-majority districts had the better school districts because they actually got adequate funding it’s preposterous to act like the situation you’re describing is the norm.. Bussing was in part supposed to help fix the disparity through making sure a lot of black students would be allowed to attend to schools in predominantly white-districts that actually get enough resources

The only complaint of kids going to worse school districts could  only be propped up when in a rare case it was perhaps a white kid from a majority white community going to black school district.

But then again this would place pressure on the segregationists to actually make sure black-majority school districts were adequately funded.

 

[DMC]

4 hours ago, The Mother of The Others said:

That bussing shot at oldman Biden was much more "manufactured" than the border crisis- - Biden has always tried, and has always been on the right side of history.  The bussing he was against was of kids from better school districts into worse......and America still agrees with him to this day on that.

I didn't read all of your rant.  It's tiresome.  But this is wrong, as @Varysblackfyre321 pointed out.  Was it manufactured?  Of course.  Welcome to politics.  But it's definitely not wrong to question Biden's record on busing, and it's not being a "leftist" to point out aspects that, no, America does not still agree with him to this day:

Quote

In 1975, Biden said in an interview that busing is an "an asinine concept, the utility of which has never been proven to me." But in the years since he made that statement, the benefits of school integration for black students—of which busing students among schools was just one option in the toolbox—has been shown in several research papers. 

One example: Rucker Johnson, a professor at public policy at Berkeley and the author of "Children of the Dream: Why School Integration Works" has found that school integration improved the academic and life outcomes for black students in a number of measures, while not affecting white students in these measures. Johnson hypothesizes that increased per-pupil spending and reductions in class size helped drive the differences. 

On a personal note, I had the grace to be educated in one of the best public high schools in the country.  I think every American should have that opportunity.  That's the key to everything.  But of course it will never happen.

[Toth]

So how is your fucking military parade going?

[Martell Spy]

13 minutes ago, Toth said:

So how is your fucking military parade going?

This is not normal. I blame the French.

[DanteGabriel]

I kept dropping in and out of consciousness trying to read that rant. I know people have called Tywin's posts thirsty in the past, but that screed was The Mother of All Thirstiness. It sounded like Kellyanne Conway trying to appeal to millennials. Or like Tomato Larson preparing a two minute spot to air on Breitbart. Or like someone trying really hard and failing to put together a Jace-style rant.

[Jace, Extat]

4 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

I kept dropping in and out of consciousness trying to read that rant. I know people have called Tywin's posts thirsty in the past, but that screed was The Mother of All Thirstiness. It sounded like Kellyanne Conway trying to appeal to millennials. Or like Tomato Larson preparing a two minute spot to air on Breitbart. Or like someone trying really hard and failing to put together a Jace-style rant.

Booo! Y'all are y'all are so  y'all are so mean! 

You know it's a good day when I'm the encouraging one.

HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYONE!!!

[Zorral]

13 minutes ago, Triskele said:

  It's quite possible for a human to hold the position that Trump's camps are cruel and disgraceful and that it would be unfair if everyone seeking asylum gets free healthcare.*

Except, you know, contagious diseases are no respecters of persons, etc., and that's why we call them contagious.  Do we really want cholera and typhus entering our water systems?  That's what happened in Haiti. They'd previously been cholera free, but after the earthquake international troops brought it into Haiti with them, and now, viola, among all it's numberless other ordeals, Haiti has cholera.

 

[Jace, Extat]

9 minutes ago, Triskele said:

One of the moderators basically was asking these questions like "Are any of you such bigots that you won't give healthcare to migrants / immigrants before we'd extend it to the Americans that still don't have it?"

Since Sullivan started talking about this potential blind spot for the Dems David Brooks and Bret Stephens have weighed in along similar lines, and done so both less effectively and with the baggage that they bring to the discussion.  A lot of left-leaning internet has had a swift backlash to that which I understand, but I still think the thrust of the thing is not that far off even if Stephens is a terrible spokesperson for it.  

Damon Linker is much better and got in on the discussion here the other day.  

The reason I keep harping on this is that it worries me that there's a snag defeat from the jaws of victory possibility here is the Dems are too woke on immigration.  I'd gladly be proven wrong, but this is I swear the type of thing where a lot of voters (and plenty of non-white voters) could vote differently then from how they respond to poll questions.  It's quite possible for a human to hold the position that Trump's camps are cruel and disgraceful and that it would be unfair if everyone seeking asylum gets free healthcare.*

*I realize too that this is not necessarily the official Dem position, but there's danger in being depicted this way.  You have to deal with the media and the electorate that you have rather than what you might want to some extent.  

Well written and salient article, thank you for sharing. 

There's a reason I'm spoiling for war with Iran, it's the only thing that would guarantee not even a Democrat could fuck up 2020 and is the only way I imagine the Senate being in play.

Unless you think Democrats can win Arizona, Iowa, Colorado, Maine, and North Carolina or Georgia while only losing Alabama of course.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

Except, you know, contagious diseases are no respecters of persons, etc., and that's why we call them contagious.  Do we really want cholera and typhus entering our water systems?  That's what happened in Haiti. They'd previously been cholera free, but after the earthquake international troops brought it into Haiti with them, and now, viola, among all it's numberless other ordeals, Haiti has cholera.

 

Dude, the facts of the situation are irrelevant. People vote with their emotions, or justify some warped logic to fit their emotions. 

I don't even get why Dems are talking so much about the concentration camps on the news and in Twitter. The Presidential candidates, sure, I want those viral denouncements from the debate stage. But I have no idea what AOC and others meant to accomplish by visiting that center. 

Americans don't care what happens to brown people they do not have a direct line of sight to. I feel like a bunch of these Congress Critters are waiting for some public surge to vindicate their (completely correct and not requiring vindication) outrage at the deplorable treatment of human beings. But... where is it?

People are recognizing a crisis at the border now, but only just over half (54% according to a CNN poll 2 days ago) of Democrats think it's because of the treatment of refugees. This is not a winning issue.

[Jace, Extat]

8 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I'm not certain that I follow but perhaps you mean like treatment when they show up for asylum.

I thought that the debate question was more like should non-citizens have something like Medicaid but perhaps I'm mistaken.  

Anyone who wouldn't want infectious disease treatment at the border is crazy like people who want to cut the CDC budget.  

No, he's just using a kinda facile argument to try and short circuit the emotional response "YOU GIBBIN WAY MAH DOLL HAIRS TO DEM!?!" With a decent application of logic.

Innoculating asylum seekers was never the question nor the discussion.

@Zorral I love ya buddy, but that one isn't gonna fly when Jace owns the sky.

[Zorral]

I am talking at the border first -- where to prevent those contagious disease epidemics from developing, basic sanitary conditions and nutrition need to prevail -- which they most certainly are not.

If they are in the US, then if they can prove they've got some sort of employment, maybe some sort of very basic healthcare could also be provided, and again, for those very obvious reasons that large parts of a group without it will be vectors from which even those with health care can be hit -- see: the consequences to others of the decisions of anti-vaxxers.

Everything is interconnected.

Probably though, even if asylum seekers are allowed into the US proper, the next argument is that they should be allowed to have jobs, and steal them from the rest of us.

 

 

[A True Kaniggit]

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Booo! Y'all are y'all are so  y'all are so mean! 

Fake Booos. 

[Zorral]

10 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Fake Booos. 

 

 

Also, many are hoping there will be rain on the TVillain's parade.  There a large chance of massive thunderstorm at 4 PM in D.C.

EDTA:  

Anyway, I'll be on the way to outdoor grilling and rooftop fireworks watching here -- and I'll bring a brolly.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Trump's concentration camps are the worst thing I can imagine. I am negotiating publication (with an academic journal) of an autoethnography that I wrote about my time in Gitmo, and I link the use of language surrounding the prison camps there as the precursor for normalizing the crisis at the border. After seeing first hand how we treated suspected terrorists (turns out the majority weren't terrorists!), and comparing that to what I'm reading about the concentration camps--the conditions are only worse and more depraved.

We see Trump's continued normalizing of the worship of power. This New Yorker article looks closely at his military parade happening today.

I want to share two quotes from this article for those of you who don't have the time to read, or you're saving your free articles (though I've heard some browser--Firefox--may or may not have an extension that gets you behind that paywall! I'd never advocate this, and only mention it so you know to stay away from it).

"Perhaps the most significant event at the G-20 session came when Vladimir Putin used the occasion to declare, in a run-up interview with the Financial Times, that “the liberal idea has become obsolete.” Sounding much like Trump at his fearmongering worst, Putin said, “The liberal idea presupposes that nothing needs to be done. The migrants can kill, plunder, and rape with impunity because their rights as migrants must be protected.” Leaders including Emmanuel Macron of France and Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, stood up to Putin and the idea that Russian-style authoritarianism was the wave of the future. By contrast, Trump voiced not a word of objection. Why would he? He is in total agreement with Putin. And, in Osaka, he stood with the Russian President and mocked both the idea of a free press and the notion that Russia had ever interfered in the 2016 elections on his behalf."

A year (or two?) ago, we were horrified that Trump deferred to and stood with Putin against the findings of U.S. Intelligence. Now this behavior is so normalized, it gets a passing reference in an article about something else.

"And so, on the Fourth, we will watch Trump, who evaded military service by pleading phantom bone spurs, spend millions of dollars of public funds in order to enact a fantasy of martial leadership. He is doing it to flatter his base. He is doing it to solicit the criticism of his enemies (the better to turn that criticism on its head). And he is doing it because he can."

And this to me, says everything about the dangers that we face going forward. 

[DMC]

33 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

There's a reason I'm spoiling for war with Iran, it's the only thing that would guarantee not even a Democrat could fuck up 2020 and is the only way I imagine the Senate being in play.

Dunno about that assumption.  The rally around the flag effect lasts for awhile, so I'm not sure if attacking Iran hurts Trump by the time the election roles around - and I certainly don't think it'd put the Senate in play to a larger extent.  Elections usually go the other way when war be started.  Anyway, this is all just fantasy.  There is no way he's going to war with the 14th most powerful military in the world.  If Cheney couldn't get the Joint Chiefs to let him, there's no way the Keystone Cops will.  Maybe a bombing campaign, sure.

11 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Trump's concentration camps are the worst thing I can imagine.

Um, then you lack imagination.  And a basic education in recent history.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

Since Sullivan started talking about this potential blind spot for the Dems David Brooks and Bret Stephens have weighed in along similar lines, and done so both less effectively and with the baggage that they bring to the discussion.  A lot of left-leaning internet has had a swift backlash to that which I understand, but I still think the thrust of the thing is not that far off even if Stephens is a terrible spokesperson for it.  

Sorry for the double post, but meant to make a smartass comment about this as well.  The day the Dems start listening to the likes of Andrew Sullivan, David Brooks, and Bret Stephens is the day the music died.

[OldGimletEye]

Once again let me make this clear. The Euro was a fucking disaster.

And what does this idiot, that Trump wants to appoint to the FED want to do? Essentially, make it global with her idiotic gold buggism.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/03/trumps-federal-reserve-pick-judy-sheltons-economic-policies.html

A quote by her:

Quote

If the appeal of cryptocurrencies is their capacity to provide a common currency, and to maintain a uniform value for every issued unit, we need only consult historical experience to ascertain that these same qualities were achieved through the classical international gold standard,” she wrote

Still stuck in the 1970s I see. Yeah rampant inflation hasn't been around the corner for awhile.

Quote

“In proposing a new international monetary system linked in some way to gold, America has an opportunity to secure continued prominence in global monetary affairs.”

1. I don't even know what his means. 2. I don't why it's important. 3. I don't understand how a gold standard achieves 1&2 even if I knew what 1 meant and 2 why it matters.

.......................................................

Yes, sign me up for the Bernie Sanders / Rand Paul vision of foreign policy.

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/1/20677441/soros-koch-end-interventionist-wars-military

Quote

The new outfit, launched yesterday, is called the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and it’s funded by liberal billionaire George Soros and libertarian billionaire Charles Koch. Its mission: to make the case against foreign wars.

Very glad to see this.

I don't agree with the Koch brothers on much, but  this is right on:

Quote

“We keep kicking out dictators and then we don’t get anything better, and we mess up a lot of people’s lives in the process — spend fortunes and have Americans killed and maimed. What do we have to show for it?”

My only comment would be, it's not worth it, even if it means giving up a mighty nice tax cut.

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

34 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

Um, then you lack imagination.  And a basic education in recent history.

Lacking imagination, says the person who, when he dislikes someone, decides he will only read said person's comments literally. But to satisfy your obtuse insistence on pedantry, let me clarify the first sentence for you: the worst thing I want to imagine currently happening in the country that is the supposed leader of the free world. 

When you feel like you disagree with someone, I think you should consider being curious, not critical. This is what I taught my 8th graders, this is what I teach my college students, and I think it's a lesson that would make you a much more tolerate person. Consider this advice as a gift, though whether you use it or not has little bearing on my day to day, except that as a fellow human, I hope you find a way to be less angry and negative and improve your life in some meaningful way. May I recommend Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl? It's short, and I believe you could handle this without your cynicism forcing you to hurl it across your bedroom in a fit. 

[Raja]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

Since Sullivan started talking about this potential blind spot for the Dems David Brooks and Bret Stephens have weighed in along similar lines, and done so both less effectively and with the baggage that they bring to the discussion.  A lot of left-leaning internet has had a swift backlash to that which I understand, but I still think the thrust of the thing is not that far off even if Stephens is a terrible spokesperson for it. 

Those articles that Stephens & Brooks wrote were racist, especially the former's statement re: the 'them vs us', which came across as pretty white nationalist. Also, this is the same Stephens who wrote about the 'disease of the Arab mind' - I have no sympathy for him or the backlash he has faced. In addition, you don't need to be a 'leftist' to identify the racist stuff that Stephens peddles in his columns. Trisk, I want to read your posts and not shake my head, but it is hard to do when when you bring up people like Stephens & Brooks and the lessons we need to heed from them, and then go on about some vague notion of 'compromise' on health coverage for undocumented immigrants even though there is very little coverage to begin with.

Undocumented immigrants are a vulnerable population, there is *mountains* of research that has shown that. Let's pretend that there isn't *anyone* seeking asylum at the border. You *still* have a significant undocumented immigrant population that needs to be covered in places that historically have a lot of undocumented immigrants ( it is also not just these states, undocumented immigrants now exist in a lot of states where previously there were few), such as CA & NY, I bring up those two states as legislators have realized that they need a system to protect undocumented immigrants - SF & NYC have probably the best system for undocumented immigrants, the NYC one is quite new, the SF one slightly older. They don't cover all services. There is cost sharing involved in both. You still have a significant undocumented immigrant population that need some form of coverage even if there is no one on the south border seeking asylum.

'Being too woke on immigration' is having a federal program that covers a set of health services for undocumented immigrants - is that too woke? There is *nothing* at the moment, no federal programs except for emergency services. How is that being too woke? I can link a *bunch* of stuff to you regarding how emergency services is not enough to care for a population, but I would imagine that you know this already.

Also re: the danger of it being depicted that way - you're not going to be changing minds of the people who automatically see those raised hands and say 'oh, they're using our money to pay for healthcare for brown people, I'm voting against them'. And you know, if someone was *actually* interested in this stuff, they would see that that is not what the democratic nominees are saying.

And this is not even getting into how terrible the system is for *documented* immigrants like me when compared to a lot europe or other OECD countries.