US politics - When the Barr's so low.

[Lykos]

There is no obstruction! Those about to lie collude with you, great leader! Behold the Justifying Department.

Or better depart the justifying.

[A True Kaniggit]

Ha. So many jokes. 

[Zorral]

Excellent title for the thread!

So, we see how disturbing Warren's policies are to the establishment.  The WaPo did a hit on her today, for, no less, her response to the question, "What would you say to a person saying I believe marriage is between a man and a woman."

They even quoted that hater of all women, scumbag, John Ziegler's opinion that she's a man-hater and this will make her lose the male vote.  How low can you go, WaPo -Bezos, hmmmmmmmmm.  How stupid do you think people are, hmmmmmmmm.  Infinitely lower, we can be sure.  This is just the beginning of what they are going to throw at her, to keep her from the nomination.  #1 -- she hates men!  #2 -- she's an elitist Massachusetts intellectual!

However, the thousands of comments in response to that piece were not having it!

[Centrist Simon Steele]

It's weird, I think the way cultural hegemony works in this country, some women can unfairly be identified as a man hater if they don't "behave" in a specific way. Warren does not fit into this (misogynistic) category in any way.

 

Edit: not to say that assholes won't move these goalposts continuously.

[DMC]

22 minutes ago, Zorral said:

This is just the beginning of what they are going to throw at her, to keep her from the nomination.

Yeah, I haven't read the article you mention, and it sounds like bullshit, but it will be interesting to see how Warren responds to increased scrutiny from the press now that she's (rightly) viewed as the co-front runner.  Other than all the Pocahontas/DNA test mishegoss, she has gotten very favorable coverage from the press, probably the best for a Dem candidate since Obama 08. 

Will the press turn on her now?  They usually do, building up to knock down is after all their thing, but thinking about that Obama example - the press really didn't start in on him til, like, March 2008, when he effectively had the nomination wrapped up.  I don't know how he did that, but if Warren can replicate it and stave off the sniping and gotcha journalism, that would be very favorable for her.  If not, it will be a good test to see if she's ready for the general.

5 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Beto's stance on taking away church's tax exempt status...

Without even considering the policy on the merits this seems like brilliant way to maximize conservative turnout and to make any wavering conservatives run back to Trump.  

Heh, yeah.  This headline sums it up perfectly:  Beto is Turning Into a Human Straw Man for Conservatives.

That issue does always make me chuckle.  Whenever I'm visiting my parents I'll find a way to bring up churches' tax exempt status into the conversation, because my dad just rages against it.  He's not even that liberal, or anti-religious, although I guess he still harbors resentment because he was forced to go to church as a kid.  Really though, I don't get why it always sets him off, but it is hilarious.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

7 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Beto's stance on taking away church's tax exempt status...

Without even considering the policy on the merits this seems like brilliant way to maximize conservative turnout and to make any wavering conservatives run back to Trump.  

Beto, as much as I like his stances on a couple of things, seems designed to hear up conservative turnout. He must be banking on his ideas turning out new voters or something.

[sologdin]

maximum turnout strikes me as a marker of legitimacy.  

[Lykos]

19 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Beto's stance on taking away church's tax exempt status...

Without even considering the policy on the merits this seems like a brilliant way to maximize conservative turnout and to make any wavering conservatives run back to Trump.  

I think they don't need that particular reminder

Quote

In a 37-minute speech at the University of Notre Dame’s law school, Barr... spoke passionately about “consequences of moral chaos” and the infringement of rights for organized religions and those of religious faith.

IndyStar

Quote

Peltier said: “I don’t agree with everything Trump does but I’m concerned with the end product and the end product is better than anything we’ve had since Ronald Reagan. There’s no doubt in my mind that Trump, despite all his shortcomings, was the right person at the right time ordained by God. I truly believe that.”

Guardian

I agree with solo, maximum turnout is the only hope.

And for that you need inspiring policies and people to sell them convincingly.

You won't convince the orthodox by pointing out that Barabbas is a criminal, when they are set on crucifying the troublemaker.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

17 minutes ago, sologdin said:

maximum turnout strikes me as a marker of legitimacy.  

Agreed. I think it's a risk, but Beto strikes me as someone who is saying things we've heard for years but current politicians fear conservative backlash (we ARE coming for your AR15s). It's a gamble to get the disenfranchised involved when it could impact the conservatives disenfranchised more than the liberal.

 

But Beto almost beat Cruz on this and I think playing it safe (Biden) keeps more people home. Get voters excited. 

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Does that particular issue get that many on the left excited though?  On the "we're taking your AR-15's away" I totally see it, but less so on the church thing.  As an atheist I always have to remind myself how many Dem voters are religious.  

You're not supposed to think that anyone else thinks differently than you! I mean what are you even thinking!?!

[Lykos]

Elizabeth Warren's basis of Faith

[Gorn]

Due to the voting power of rural voters in US politics, going all-in on gun control is not a smart policy. Hypotetical nominee Beto might win New York, California and Illinois electoral votes with 70% of popular vote instead of 60%, but he'd lose Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, Maine, New Hampshire... shit, even Oregon and Minnesota would be shaky. And you can forget any dreams about winning in Arizona, North Carolina or Florida for at least the next generation.

As for messing with tax-exempt status for religions, I'm atheist, so yay I guess? However, pissing off large majorities of black and Latino voters is a catastrophically stupid policy for someone who wants to be Democratic nominee

[Centrist Simon Steele]

29 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Does that particular issue get that many on the left excited though?  On the "we're taking your AR-15's away" I totally see it, but less so on the church thing.  As an atheist I always have to remind myself how many Dem voters are religious.  

I think that's exactly his miscalculation. ARs, yes, people may turn out more than expected (this country is NOT full of gun nuts). Church? I think he's betting on getting atheist turnout--but I am not certain if they are a demographic that isn't turning out, and even if they are, the religious backlash would more than make up for it.

My opinion on Beto is that he is fake. He doesn't have true beliefs aside from aligning with the party. He'll take some risks (he was one of the first to say, "Hey man, I'm a capitalist"), but he seems to miscalculate most of the time.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

4 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Due to the voting power of rural voters in US politics, going all-in on gun control is not a smart policy. Hypotetical nominee Beto might win New York, California and Illinois electoral votes with 70% of popular vote instead of 60%, but he'd lose Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, Maine, New Hampshire... shit, even Oregon and Minnesota would be shaky. And you can forget any dreams about winning in Arizona, North Carolina or Florida for at least the next generation.

As for messing with tax-exempt status for religions, I'm atheist, so yay I guess? However, pissing off large majorities of black and Latino voters is a catastrophically stupid policy for someone who wants to be Democratic nominee

Growing up and currently living in Colorado, I think you might be wrong there. Denver and the suburban areas have overtaken the rural vote the last few elections. Cory Gardner's election was the last major win for the Right. Then again, this state also said no to tax increases for education and infrastructure...so, maybe you're right. And I mean, minor increases.

[Guest]

Just to remind everyone how badly Dear Leader fucked over our Kurdish allies.

Quote

Turkey launched its long-threatened incursion into Syria after President Donald Trump ordered a small contingent of about 50 US troops to be pulled back from the border area amid a belief that a Turkish incursion was imminent. Before that, as a confidence building measure with Turkey, the US convinced Kurds to dismantle their defensive fortifications along the border and pull their fighters back. The US said Turkey had agreed to the arrangement which sought to prevent unilateral Turkish military action.

And given how these things work, the Kurds were probably convinced to do this on the guarantee that U.S. troops would be stationed as a "trip-wire", similar to South Korea. It's really unconscionable. 

[Zorral]

As for the received wisdom here against running on gun control -- there are those who are doing it, and doing it deliberately, with consideration and true passion, because there is support for it.

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/11/768762927/gun-control-is-front-and-center-in-virginia-races

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/new-poll-finds-virginia-voters-focused-on-gun-policy-ahead-of-pivotal-election/2019/10/03/db034922-e472-11e9-a331-2df12d56a80b_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/giffords-gun-control-group-spends-300000-on-ads-targeting-va-republicans/2019/10/08/f63f5e52-e9f3-11e9-9306-47cb0324fd44_story.html

https://www.nbc12.com/2019/09/20/va-gop-candidate-tight-house-race-backs-gun-control/

 

[Lykos]

I assume that Beto wasn't thinking of welfare organizations tied to churches. How are those treated fiscally in the US? this touches on Mlle. Zabzies thread.

I think it's ok to float these ideas at this point, probably should refrain from it after there is a nominee for president.

[Ormond]

According to the reporting I've seen, O'Rourke did not advocate for the removal of tax exemption for all churches, but just for those who oppose same sex marriage.

I worked for almost 40 years to get my denomination (Presbyterian Church USA) to allow same sex marriage. But the idea of the government deciding which religious organizations do and do not deserve a tax exemption on the basis of their stance on particular issues is abominable. How can someone who believes in the separation of church and state at all even come up with that idea?

If he had actually advocated for the elimination of tax exemption for all religious organizations, that would be treating all religions equally. But to use the tax code to reward or punish beliefs the present government agrees with is incredibly dangerous. Do we want the next Republican administration to deny tax exemption to religious organizations that support abortion rights or provide aid to undocumented immigrants? 

[TrueMetis]

43 minutes ago, Ormond said:

According to the reporting I've seen, O'Rourke did not advocate for the removal of tax exemption for all churches, but just for those who oppose same sex marriage.

I worked for almost 40 years to get my denomination (Presbyterian Church USA) to allow same sex marriage. But the idea of the government deciding which religious organizations do and do not deserve a tax exemption on the basis of their stance on particular issues is abominable. How can someone who believes in the separation of church and state at all even come up with that idea?

If he had actually advocated for the elimination of tax exemption for all religious organizations, that would be treating all religions equally. But to use the tax code to reward or punish beliefs the present government agrees with is incredibly dangerous. Do we want the next Republican administration to deny tax exemption to religious organizations that support abortion rights or provide aid to undocumented immigrants? 

Separation of church and state goes both ways, and advocating for or against gay marriage is a church explicitly diving into politics and the governments wheelhouse. Now I agree with the idea of eliminating tax exempt status for all religious organizations, but sitting there and asking about how you can believe in separation of church and state and be for removing tax exempt status on religious organizations engaged in politic advocacy is a little odd when it's the religious organization that's the one violated separation of church and state.

How could someone come up with that idea while believing in separation of church and state? Because they believe in separation of church and state and churches have been sticking their noses into state affairs for far to long.

[Guest]

I agree with @Ormond. It would be one thing to advocate revoking the tax-exempt status for all religious organizations. But revoking just for certain ones means Republicans will do the same when they get back into power. Either all, or maybe all above a certain size, or who receive over a certain amount in donations is more palatable.