US Politics: I Say a Little Prayer for You!

[mcbigski]

47 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Folks asked earlier what the difference is between sanders and warren on race, and this sums it up. 

 

So repeal the equal protection clause?  Or at least just living constitution it away.  (Is that a verb now too?)

Sanders in contrast wants more or fewer race specific laws?

[Ormond]

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

So it’s best to turn the WH off? That seems illogical and makes us look like a joke. If he refuses to leave he’s trespassing and should be taken out in cuffs to set a precedent that this is never going to be allowed.

Wow, I am sorry but I profoundly disagree. I do not see where this is "illogical" or "a joke" at all. 

MInimizing the potential for violence always seems logical to me.  I do not see how forcing him out a bit more slowly through cutting off water, etc., is at all the same thing as sending a message that "this sort of thing" is going to be allowed.  

[Ormond]

4 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Forgive me if my outside impression of how things stand is wrong, but wouldn’t the more pressing concern in this kind of situation be that Trump still has some kind of support, and that this could potentially be pretty widespread? Can you really cut him off from the world if a large portion of the States are willing and eager to carry out his orders?

I don't know exactly what you mean by a "large proportion of the States", but I guess I am with those who don't see the military taking his side, and all you would need is a fairly small contingent of soldiers or Marines to surround the White House and make sure nothing gets in. 

[Kalbear]

16 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

So repeal the equal protection clause?  Or at least just living constitution it away.  (Is that a verb now too?)

Sanders in contrast wants more or fewer race specific laws?

Sanders doesnt appear to care one way or another. 

[karaddin]

22 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Wow, I am sorry but I profoundly disagree. I do not see where this is "illogical" or "a joke" at all. 

MInimizing the potential for violence always seems logical to me.  I do not see how forcing him out a bit more slowly through cutting off water, etc., is at all the same thing as sending a message that "this sort of thing" is going to be allowed.  

I think the big risk of your suggested approach is that it reinforces that right wing white people can flout the law and occupy government buildings without having violence enacted on them when everyone knows that if left wing black people tried the same thing they'd be very lucky to get out of the situation without at least some of them in body bags.

I agree with you on the potential harm of forced removal, I just think it's outweighed by the potential harm of not doing it.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

Sorry if anyone posted it already, but Carville's got an interview where he's panicked AF that's probably a good read for the political hobbyist among ye (Vox, unlimited clicks, thanks Ezra). 

While I hate the Sanders and Trump comparison, guys like Carville and other establishment, permanent fixtures of the Democratic party explaining how unelectable Sanders is just reeks of the Republicans in 2015. I guess in this case, that's a good thing, but I feel like the permanent fixtures are really out of touch.

[HexMachina]

32 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I don't know exactly what you mean by a "large proportion of the States", but I guess I am with those who don't see the military taking his side, and all you would need is a fairly small contingent of soldiers or Marines to surround the White House and make sure nothing gets in. 

I meant his supporters in terms of voters, Senators, Judiciary etc. and how if these people might continue to follow his leadership rather than the actual President. I suppose the better way to phrase it is i see the danger being having two separate Presidents, both with their own segment of the population viewing them as legitimate.

This isn’t an argument that removing him by force is a preferable alternative of course because i think that would likely just inflame his supporters...i think if he refused to leave things are going to be messy no matter what you do

[The Mother of The Others]

Quote

his supporters who are pushing for a third term do not get the irony that you allege.

You're being played?    If he does file to mess with that amendment he'll be told no.  End of story.  But he'll have done it to mess with you and Behar, not to get that 3rd term.     

Quote

on the other end, everyone admitted that election interference was sought; seeking election interference is unlawful.  the case was accordingly proven.

Huh.   The YouCraners in Ukraine said they weren't quidded, and they got their aid on schedule, and that means trump gave these oh so very important allies aid for many of his days in office while obama gave them aid for zero days of his terms, which horrifies you i'm sure, as it makes trump the better man at international mystery AND at pornstar trysts.   2- 0.

And we all know the election being interfered with here is the 2020 one.   That's why we have impeachment.  They looked at their candidates and knew none could unseat an incumbent trump during an improved economy so they did all they could to weaken him on the Hill.  And today trump has exactly the approval he had going in to impeachment.   It failed.

9 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

 

Adam Sandler is way too successful to be referenced here.  You hate the rich, remember?   His movies are more my province.   He's mine.   Not yours.  No rich for you!

9 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Dont bother trying to argue the point. Just remember who said this in 2024, and marvel at how the talking point will be of course trump should be potus for the third term for (reasons).

Let's all remember, yes.  Bluff called.  Can we time capsule this one?  So a reminder of this 3rd term chat pops up in 2024 after it hasn't happened.  But even then nobody will admit how deeply wrong they were, because reasons.

9 hours ago, Maithanet said:

"the witch hunt" to make the 2024 election even more about him, rather than unimportant issues like the country. 

Ha!  Now flip it and reverse it.   He's been working on behalf of the nation a hell of a lot more than your do-nothing heroes have.   They've abdicated the role of governing entirely in the race to be dead weight instead of a governing body.   The supreme court is way too important nowadays precisely because congress hasn't been doing its job, leaving it to the courts to legislate.   

8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Your rants would be funny IF many of Trump's "humorous" declarations had not already been followed up with actions....anyone who is not scared of Trump at this point lacks critical thinking

Always a pleasure.   This circle of teaching with no students enrolled to listen.    Re: your list of reasons to fear the orange- - -  Healing the open wound on the border is important, yes.   And JOINING the trade war China has already been waging against us for many a moon, that was also courageous and necessary.   The thing with Fathead (north korean dictator) was weird as fuck, I'll give you that.  It's such a pickle over there, maybe there's no better play than trying to pal up with him, ego to ego.  Though of course doomed, it was at least a way to actively try.   Your list went on.   Something about counterprotesters being as much a part of the problem on that day as the white supremacists, one inciting violence while the other tried to make free speech unappealing.   In my opinion, there were, "a lot of no-good people on both sides."    So I had some notes.   I hope you don't feel my critique of your critique was too critical.

8 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Re: bolded - the idea that solo is influenced by CNN is the funniest thing you've said yet.

You know what's a good way to end investigations?  Not do criminal shit.  And cooperate with the investigation instead of dragging it out.

Cnn brainwashing comment was for everyone, the generic 'you,' because what i read here is very similar to that channel's in-studio guests who start off with, "he's wretched as a man, and unspeakably atrocious as a president," before the anchor even asks them the first question.

You know what's a good way to end investigations?    There is none.  And that's the point.  The house dems will continue to launch investigations infinitely, no matter what.  Because they're abusing their power.

1 hour ago, Durckad said:

I...uh...I think I kinda like Steyer.

Is that bad?

He's getting better at it.   The empty stare of his that Will Farrell and I seized upon is gone, and he's revealed something of himself in ads besides hate, at last.  I like him more too.   He's not SaneBoy like Pete is, but no longer seems absurd.

 

[Kalbear]

55 minutes ago, Triskele said:

That was a particularly obnoxious response given that I even prefaced it as something more for junkies than some essential piece of the day.  

Wasnt meant badly at all. I got super excited reading it. His rant read like an excellent Sorkin or Simon rant. It was great. Sorry I wasnt clearer.

ETA - aw, I fucked up the quote. "I'm getting a fucking welding torch". I could hear stringer bell say that shit. 

[GrimTuesday]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Wasnt meant badly at all. I got super excited reading it. His rant read like an excellent Sorkin or Simon rant. It was great. Sorry I wasnt clearer.

ETA - aw, I fucked up the quote. "I'm getting a fucking welding torch". I could hear stringer bell say that shit. 

We clearly come from two different frames of mind, to me comparing a rant to Sorkin is an insult.

Here is the video I was referencing earlier. The way that the "mainstream" of the Democratic party talks about Bernie is irrational. Chris Matthews is one of MSNBC's "stars", his voice carries significant weight with viewers and this is just blatant fearmongering. This is Fox News level fearmongering.

 

[Darzin]

15 hours ago, Altherion said:

This is a really bizarre thing to say -- can you elaborate on it? Sanders has not only been a Senator for a long time, but was the challenger to the eventual winner of a long-lasting primary during the last cycle. I'm sure people tried to do opposition research on him, but why would it be unused? He eventually won the Senate races and he was a serious nuisance in the primary. Compare this to, say, Buttigieg, who is the mayor of a small town. There are many arguments one can make against Sanders, but "least vetted" is just strange -- only Biden is more vetted.

I guess vetted is maybe the wrong word my point is Sanders has a lot of old untouched scandals it's not just the socialism thing his scandals go on and on and on. And while Pete gets hit for a wine cave and Warren gets hit for a later medicare rollout everyone is sitting on some huge liabilities of Sanders because his base is prickly and they didn't want to alienate them and because Democrats don't care about some of this stuff.

Quote

Sanders' could not hold a steady job until age 40, essentially living off of government. Take a look at Sanders' barren resume prior to running for mayor. How could he paint himself as anti-establishment when his only steady job has been government work? Stories like this would be everywhere.

Sanders attended a Nicaraguan anti-America rally during which the crowds chanted “Here, there, everywhere the Yankee will die.” He is on record declaring this demonstration patriotic.

Sanders proclaimed that "Breadlines are a good thing"

Sanders praised Castro and Nicaragua extensively in a TV interview.

He got kicked out of a commune for not doing his fair share of work. Bernie Sanders was asked to leave a hippie commune in 1971 for “sitting around and talking” about politics instead of working.

The "women fantasize about being gang raped" essay

The "cervical cancer is caused by lack of orgasms" and “age of consent laws are a social construct” essay

The "toddlers should run naked and touch each other's genitals" essay

And that's just part of it read this and this for the full paydirtand I realize these are just oppo files, I think most of this comes from Clinton's extensive but mostly unused opposition research to Sanders and of course some is exaggerated but some isn't. In 2016 I was a Sanders supporter and I will happily vote for him in the general, but the man is a massive liability. I used to think the democratic socialist label could be overcome but not when there are so many clips floating around of him praising totalitarian socialist systems, it plays into all the fears middle America has of socialism when you can play clips of Sanders praising breadlines and Fidel Castro. Also people have heard of his weird essays but what is going to happen when the people who brought you swift boating have this in writing from the candidate.

Quote

In Vermont, at a state beach, a mother is reprimanded by Authority for allowing her 6 month old daughter to go about without her diapers on. Now, if children go around naked, they are liable to see each others sexual organs, and maybe even touch them. Terrible thing! If we [raise] children up like this it will probably ruin the whole pornography business, not to mention the large segment of the general economy which makes its money by playing on peoples sexual frustrations."

 

Quote

What do you think it really means when 3 doctors, after intense study, write that ‘of the 26 patients (who developed breast cancer) below 51 (years of age), one was sexually adjusted.’ It means, very bluntly, that the manner in which you bring up your daughter with regard to sexual attitudes may very well determine whether or not she will develop breast cancer, among other things.

Quote

How much guilt, nervousness have you imbued in your daughter with regard to sex? If she is 16, 3 years beyond puberty and the time which nature set forth for childbearing, and spent a night out with her boyfriend, what is your reaction? Do you take her to a psychiatrist because she is “maladjusted,” or a “prostitute,” or are you happy that she has found someone with whom she can share love? Are you concerned about HER happiness, or about your “reputation” in the community.
With regard to the schools that you send your children to, are you concerned that many of these institutions serve no other function than to squash the life, joy and curiosity out of kids. When a doctor writes that the cancer personality “represses hate, anger, dissatisfaction and grudges, or on the other hand, is a ‘good’ person, who is consumed with self pity, suffers in stoic silence”, do you know what he is talking about, and what this has to do with children, parents, and schools

I don't care who you are that's weird AF and none of the other candidates have creepy essays like this, none of the other candidates have videos like the ones above regardless of any policy differences these things are huge liabilities and not really brought up in the debates, and that's just from his published essays and what some Clinton fans on reddit dug up. Who knows what Soviet praising Stalin praising fun Donald Trumps team has found they had at least four secret videos on him. If he is the nominee the Republicans will unleash a torrent like never before and he will be finished.

[Rippounet]

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Folks asked earlier what the difference is between sanders and warren on race, and this sums it up.

Warren isn't afraid to use a lot of empty words to appear woke and you fall for it.
Seriously, "race-conscious laws" ? What does that even mean? Do you know? Does she? Her website doesn't say. If she wants to fight discrimination she can just say it clearly. If it's about something else she can also be clear about it.
Since she's not, it's all noise.

It says more about you than about the candidates in my book.

If you want to tell us how great Warren is on race, by all means, tell us more about her proposals, her commitments, the support she obtained... etc. I'll be interested, and I might easily agree with you.

Edit: and while we're at it:

Quote

Sanders described a “system that is broken and racist” and called for investments in health care, young people, jobs and education, not “more jails and incarceration.”

“We need to end the war on drugs which disproportionally impacted African Americans and Latinos,” he said, adding that he called for an end to private prisons.

“There’s no excuse that white families have 10 times more wealth than black families,” Sanders said. “No excuse for black women dying in child birth at three times the rate that white women do.”

That seems woke enough for me. If anything that seems more explicit.

3 hours ago, The Mother of The Others said:

I hope you don't feel my critique of your critique was too critical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ftdu8yrKOw

[OldGimletEye]

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Folks asked earlier what the difference is between sanders and warren on race, and this sums it up. 

 

Yeah, but this all depends on what is meant by "race conscious" laws. Its easy to say you support them, like reparations, but then be very vague about exactly what you're talking about. We saw this with the issue of reparations. Many Democrats say they supported it, but then were vague about the actual details, or supported plans that they called reparations, but weren't exactly the types of plans that advocates of reparations had in mind. 

 

[butterbumps!]

9 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Yeah, I am really curious to see what data on this looks like.  Couldn't find anything yet (although could probabaly figure it out from the NYT Iowa data).  

Re: Rogan, it was clearly a mistake and wrong for Sanders to acknowledge the Rogan endorsement (which has since, appare tkh been walked back by Rogan) and then promote it as well.  I saw that Economist poll too - if it's not an outlier Sanders is in trouble.

Yea, I had been thinking of the Times Iowa data.  It had shown only a modest increase in that age demographic.

On the Rogan thing, I’m not really sure how much impact, or how sustained an impact, something like that will bring him.

8 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

More: Biden and Sanders are really really old, Warren is not. 

Yes, and while Sanders is sharper than Biden, neither at all looks like they could handle the rigors of the job, or gives me confidence they’d get all the way through the campaign and inauguration without incident.   Adding to my Sanders angst, should he get the nom, I’m furious that he in particular adds an additional layer to my already growing election stress regarding whether he’ll have another cardiac episode or some other health issue in the 5-6 months between getting the potential nomination and the general, as well as during the next two months until he’s sworn in.

The heart attack, at his age, should have been disqualifying, and the fact that he didn’t gracefully bow out gives me panic that he is still very much not thinking about what’s best for beating Trump and the overall good of the country.

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Warren isn't afraid to use a lot of empty words to appear woke and you fall for it.
Seriously, "race-conscious laws" ? What does that even mean? Do you know? Does she? Her website doesn't say. If she wants to fight discrimination she can just say it clearly. If it's about something else she can also be clear about it.
Since she's not, it's all noise.

It says more about you than about the candidates in my book.

If you want to tell us how great Warren is on race, by all means, tell us more about her proposals, her commitments, the support she obtained... etc. I'll be interested, and I might easily agree with you.

I’m not sure I understand your objection.   I read “race conscious laws” as being laws that won’t disproportionately harm groups by race, and/ or will fight discrimination.  As in, there have been laws in the past that either accidentally or intentionally harmed certain races disproportionately, and she would be more conscious of the racial implications of the laws she passes.

I know one can find instances of Sanders mentioning racism or other isms, but I think the point is that Warren is typically much more interested in speaking to those issues directly, whereas Sanders often ignores them and immediately pivots to economic issues without addressing them.   Like in interviews and debates he is much more likely to side step these points entirely.   I mean, it could be a strategy, but I do think it’s fair to say that these issues aren’t really what he gears his campaign toward.

[Rippounet]

My objection is that this is all messaging. If you want to know where candidates stand you look at their record as a lawmaker and/or activist as well as their concrete proposals. Vague concepts like "compassionate conservatism" tell us nothing. 

[butterbumps!]

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

My objection is that this is all messaging. If you want to know where candidates stand you look at their record as a lawmaker and/or activist as well as their concrete proposals. Vague concepts like "compassionate conservatism" tell us nothing. 

Even if this is all messaging, why is that worthless?    I can’t speak for the virtues of compassionate conservatism, but I do think having issues of race, sexism and other isms as part of the national conversation is incredibly important, especially now, after Trump’s been unleashing all these latent demons and putting these issues in the open.  I think messaging, without some kind of legislative backup, is problematic.  But I’m not really sure there’s no value added to otherwise robust progressive agendas by speaking directly about these issues.

[Raja]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Seriously, "race-conscious laws" ? What does that even mean? Do you know? Does she? Her website doesn't say.

I'm not sure where specifically you looked on the website - Because I was curious, I went and had a look - I think there is enough on her website to get an idea about what she means.

1. Leveling the playing field for entrepreneurs of colour

Quote

That’s why I have a new plan: a Small Business Equity Fund to help close the startup capital gap for entrepreneurs of color. 

On day one of my presidency, I will direct all federal pension and retirement funds to seek out a more diverse set of investment managers, building on successful programs like the Smaller Asset Managers Pilot Program.

And I will go further, requiring states and cities administering my new Equity Fund to work with diverse investment managers too — putting $7 billion in the hands of minority- and women-owned investment managers.

Finally, while the Trump Administration has tried to slash funding for the Minority Business Development Agency — an organization dedicated to empowering entrepreneurs of color with access to funding networks and business advice — I’ll triple the MBDA’s budget so it can expand on its good work and seek to address the imbalance in current system.

2. Valuing the work of women in colour

Quote

By imposing new rules on companies that hope to receive federal contracts, we can take a big step towards creating equal opportunities for Black, Latina, Native American, Asian and other women of color. I will issue an Executive Order that will:

• Deny contracting opportunities to companies with poor track records on diversity and equal pay.
• Ban companies that want federal contracts from using forced arbitration and non-compete clauses that restrict workers’ rights. 
• Ban contractors from asking applicants for past salary information and criminal histories

Make Senior Ranks of the Federal Government Look Like America

• Diversifying recruitment: Direct real resources towards attracting entry-level applicants from HBCUs, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and other minority-serving institutions, and reforming our higher-level recruiting process to attract diverse experienced hires into senior management positions.
• Opening up promotion pathways: Require every federal agency to incorporate diversity as part of their core strategic plan and create support networks through a government-wide mentorship program that centers Black and Brown employees.

 

3. Safe and Affordable Housing

Quote

• My housing bill takes a first step by creating a first-of-its-kind down-payment assistance program. The people eligible for assistance must be first-time homebuyers who live in a formerly redlined neighborhoods or communities that were segregated by law and are still currently low-income If they qualify, they are entitled to a substantial grant they can put towards a down payment on a home anywhere in the country. The program will provide thousands of families with a real chance to buy a home — the same opportunities the government denied to previous generations of residents of the area.
• One existing barrier is discrimination. The Fair Housing Act bars certain forms of discrimination — and we must ensure that the Act is not weakened or diminished either by Congress or by regulators, and that it is fully and fairly enforced. But there are other forms of discrimination that are not currently covered by the Act. That’s why my bill prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran status, and the source of one’s income, like a housing voucher

Everything up here is from her website, and there is *much* more, but I didn't want this to be a two page post - now, you might evaluate these plans and come to the conclusion that they might not work or do not go far enough  - but these represent policies, laws & proposals that take race into account.

[Rippounet]

I mentioned the first in the last thread as one of the few concrete measures proposed by Warren yes. But -maybe it's a quibble- those first two are not laws. The third is, so that's fair. 

My  point was that the difference between Warren and Sanders is messaging though. I don't buy that she's more concerned about race just because she talks about it all the time. 

[Raja]

Just now, Rippounet said:

I mentioned the first in the last thread as one of the few concrete measures proposed by Warren yes. But -maybe it's a quibble- those first two are not laws. The third is, so that's fair.

There is a lot more on the website if you go take a look, I am sure more than one is a law.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 hours ago, The Mother of The Others said:

You're being played?    If he does file to mess with that amendment he'll be told no.  End of story.  But he'll have done it to mess with you and Behar, not to get that 3rd term.     

Wow, so, if he wins a second term and immediately files to run for a third (as he did when he won his first term) he’s just doing it for the “lulz”?  President Troll strikes again?  
 

And you’re cool with this?  You think it isn’t setting the groundwork for attempting to undermine the validity of the 22nd Amendment?