All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[PaulBullion]

Y'all better vote:

Journalist Carl Bernstein said Sunday that President Trump has discussed ways to challenge the results of the midterm elections if the GOP's grasp on power slips.

All the close losses will be challenged by Trump and his Trump Party. It's gotta be mostly landslides to count.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Both of these things are true. And, to top it all off, the GOP is lying their asses off to pretend otherwise. To put it another way, the GOP is lying to cancer patients that they will protect them.

The ACA’s dead anyways. The Republican states are completely undermining it and fucking their people over, no Republican administration is going to do a thing to fix it. It’s sad because they are gaming it so it hurts their voters so they are motivated to kill it. From a strategic standpoint they played that game pretty well. The ACA always should have been an easy layup and the Republicans made it unpopular and an albatross for Democrats throughout Obama’s entire term. They got needless concessions which pissednoff liberals. And then they hacked it away to the point where it’s becoming a deadweight issue.

**** them

[Kevinroc]

The ACA’s dead anyways. The Republican states are completely undermining it and fucking their people over, no Republican administration is going to do a thing to fix it. It’s sad because they are gaming it so it hurts their voters so they are motivated to kill it. From a strategic standpoint they played that game pretty well. The ACA always should have been an easy layup and the Republicans made it unpopular and an albatross for Democrats throughout Obama’s entire term. They got needless concessions which pissednoff liberals. And then they hacked it away to the point where it’s becoming a deadweight issue.

**** them

The irony is that polls continuously show Healthcare is the #1 issue among the voters. And that voters strongly favor Democrats on Healthcare. Nothing has cut into the GOP's poll numbers like healthcare. That's why we're seeing them straight up lie to the voters about wanting to protect Pre-Existing Condition protections.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

The irony is that polls continuously show Healthcare is the #1 issue among the voters. And that voters strongly favor Democrats on Healthcare. Nothing has cut into the GOP's poll numbers like healthcare. That's why we're seeing them straight up lie to the voters about wanting to protect Pre-Existing Condition protections.

And that's when Republicans aren't outright trying to distract voters away from the healthcare issue altogether by screaming bloody murder about immigration and the bloodthirsty hordes of violent illegals rampaging towards our borders from South America to rape, kill and steal while Democrats happily look the other way. The GOP knows healthcare could well be their Waterloo, so they're falling back on the old strategy of keeping their base hopped up on fear and anger of brown skinned people, that way, the rubes won't notice how their elected leaders have been screwing them over until it's much too late.

[PaulBullion]

And that's when Republicans aren't outright trying to distract voters away from the healthcare issue altogether by screaming bloody murder about immigration and the bloodthirsty hordes of violent illegals rampaging towards our borders from South America to rape, kill and steal while Democrats happily look the other way. The GOP knows healthcare could well be their Waterloo, so they're falling back on the old strategy of keeping their base hopped up on fear and anger of brown skinned people, that way, the rubes won't notice how their elected leaders have been screwing them over until it's much too late.

It's so blatant how they're mixing their metaphors.

"Brown people are coming. They speak Spanish, but they're ISIS! And Al Qaida! And transsexual!!"

[PaulBullion]

If anyone can do it, I'm sure Beto can. Still, getting die-hard Republicans to cross over and vote Democrat is incredibly difficult. Though the same can be said the other way around.

I plan on voting Democrat up and down the ticket, except maybe for one person, our local Mayor who is more Purple than Red. Besides, no one is running against him. This will probably be his last term in office, so in four years the local Democrats might have a chance to elect a Democratic Mayor, maybe.

It won't happen. All you can do is get a much higher turnout and outvote that block on non-college educated white men that keep voting for the evil ones.

The only thing I could see is that women who used to vote GOP can no longer bring themselves to do that, but the "die hards" among even those are more likely to not vote than vote Democrats.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

It won't happen. All you can do is get a much higher turnout and outvote that block on non-college educated white men that keep voting for the evil ones.

The only thing I could see is that women who used to vote GOP can no longer bring themselves to do that, but the "die hards" among even those are more likely to not vote than vote Democrats.

The die hards would sooner renounce their citizenship and declare allegiance to Russia before they’d vote Democrat. They’re a lost cause and unable to convert, no matter how much the GOP fucks them up the ass, you can only wait for them to croak and their numbers to decrease. As for women who lean Republican, one can only hope they paid attention to the Brett Kavanaugh debacle and how Christine Ford was abused before, during and after the hearings and decide the GOP is too damn evil to continue supporting, but I’m skeptical even of that.

[PaulBullion]

The die hards would sooner renounce their citizenship and declare allegiance to Russia before they’d vote Democrat. They’re a lost cause and unable to convert, no matter how much the GOP fucks them up the ass, you can only wait for them to croak and their numbers to decrease. As for women who lean Republican, one can only hope they paid attention to the Brett Kavanaugh debacle and how Christine Ford was abused before, during and after the hearings and decide the GOP is too damn evil to continue supporting, but I’m skeptical even of that.

And that is exactly why it would be a bad strategy for Democrats to try to win back the "white working class."
The working class is majority female and non-white and already voting Democrats by wide margins. Those guys who are voting for a racist homophobe will not come back until the Democratic party embraces homophobia and racism.

[PaulBullion]

Last 5 business days:

[SquirrelMan]

In more shitty news:

Giant inflatable colon stolen in Kansas City



I bet you all need some time to digest that piece of news, so I'll see myself out.

[worstblogever]

Three years ago on this date, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” we looked at former Oklahoma Congressional candidate Timothy Ray Murray, the challenger to Oklahoma Congressman Frank Lucas in 2014, who after only getting 5% of the vote in the primary race for that U.S. House seat, got online to claim that Lucas had actually been publicly executed while on a diplomatic visit to Ukraine in 2011, and theat he had been "replaced", somehow. Therefore, Murray wanted Lucas' votes ceded to him. Further questioning indicated that Murray believed the current Frank Lucas running around as an "automaton" created to keep up the ruse. This isn't the plot of a sci-fi movie, this isn’t a plotline from Westworld, and Murray is obviously in need of serious psychological analysis but has thankfully fallen off the face of the earth politically.



In 2015, 2016, 2017, that we published our first two "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" profiles of the U.S. House Representative from Montana’s At-Large Congressional District, Greg Gianforte , who after several big losses in trying to become the next Governor of Montana. having started Christian ministries that have bankrolled millions of dollars toward the construction of a the 20,000 square foot Dinosaur and Fossil Museum in Glendive, Montana, that asserts to its patrons that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and there’s no way the skeletal remains of dinosaurs on display are millions of years old, as scientific carbon-dating technology would have you believe. No, the curators assure people passing through that the fossils are but 4,300 years old (which would mean dinosaurs roamed the Earth around the time of the pharoahs) and that there’s no proof of evolution, whatsoever. Okay, maybe trying to willfully spread ignorance of science when you’re motivated by your faith on that subject doesn’t seem like it would be the most harmful thing, even in this day and age… it’s not like Greg Gianforte’s deeply held faiths are motivating him into any stupid policy decisions? Well, actually… he and his wife apparently lobbied the city of Bozeman, Montana to try and pass a city ordinance based on Indiana’s “religious freedom” laws that made it legal for Christians businesses to discriminate against the LGBT community. Gianforte is apparently dedicated enough to opposing LGBT rights that he also bankrolled the legal defense of Colorado baker Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakes, who wanted to refuse service to gay patrons (Phillips lost, of course), and further applauds Phillips for not opening his bakery on Halloween because “Christians should not promote Halloween”. If these bizarre policy calls based on his faith weren’t already troubling, there’s Greg Gianforte’s opinion on Social Security… we shouldn’t have it because he thinks “the concept of retirement is not biblical”, citing the fact that Noah built the Ark at the totally believable age of 600. Gianforte made a last ditch effort to beat Steve Bullock in the 2016 governor’s race by trying to gin up fears over Syrian refugees, and lying and claiming Bullock had been restricting gun rights (while he had actually EXPANDED gun rights in Montana as governor.) Gianforte got absolutely trounced by Bullock in their debate, showing little understanding of the law in many instances, and providing only tired and cliche Republican talking points devoid of facts. Gianforte, however, maintained support of Donald Trump even after he boasted about getting away with sexually assaulting women… which would pay off later.

Because, just when we thought we had our last entry about Gianforte… Congressman Ryan Zinke was picked to be a member of Donald Trump’s Cabinet of Horrors, opening up a spot in Congress in a special election race that wouldn’t you know it, Gianforte would run for. And even though Montana still leans extremely to the right, and the Democratic candidate, Rob Quist, had some sketchy details in his background, it was nip and tuck as the last few days to that special election in Montana, with Donald Trump endorsing Gianforte, because he tolerated Trump’s sexual assault in the build up to the previous election. And… then things got weird. Weird even for a guy who thinks Jesus was fending of T-Rexes. You see, on the eve of the election, Greg Gianforte lost his goddamned mind, picked up a reporter from the Guardian, Ben Jacobs , body-slammed him and screamed at him.

This is normally unacceptable behavior for a politician, and more fitting for how a heel WWE wrestler would resolve being confronted with questions they don’t like. Well, Gianforte was charged with assault, pleaded guilty to avoid jail time that would make him a rather ineffective Congressman, and then spent most of his few months in office dodging a court’s order that he still would need to take a mug shot. Spoiler Alert: He still had to get a mug shot.

He still barely has the self-control to remain a functional member of society, let alone a Congressman:

• October 3rd, 2017: Gianforte votes for HR 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, that would try to create an unconstitutional ban abortion at 20 weeks (even though medical science tells us fetuses do not have the capability to feel pain until 29 weeks).
• December 19th, 2017: Greg Gianforte votes for HR 1, the GOP’s $1.7 trillion tax cut to benefit the wealthiest Americans and corporations permanently that coincidentally also removes the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate and kicks 13 million people off their health insurance.
• February 14th, 2018: Gianforte celebrates Valentine’s Day by blurting out as many conspiracy theories as he can in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo to try to cast doubt on the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with them.
• February 18th, 2018: Rep. Gianforte and his fellow Republicans decide that poor big businesses are suffering too much at the hands of the Americans with Disabilities Act too much, and vote for HR 620, which would strip most of the civil rights protections guaranteed by it.

Greg Gianforte’s opponent in November is Kathleen Williams, a Democratic member of the Montana state legislature since 2010, and his strategy for holding onto his seat is a combination of parlaying anti-immigrant fear-mongering (which, Montana seems like it’s a hell of a long way away from Mexico, Greg), having Baron Dementia von F***stick come out to Missoula and celebrate his attack on a journalist, and lying his *** off about his opponent in a barrage of ads. Seriously, Kathleen Williams has openly stated that she feels Democrats need new leadership in Washington, and would like Nancy Pelosi to step aside and hand things off to a fresher face. Meanwhile, Gianforte is running ads claiming that Williams is a “Nancy Pelosi liberal”, which shows you how much the truth matters to him. With any luck, the people of Montana are smart enough to boot this rage-fueled lunatic in about two weeks’ time.

[Mister Mets]

Oh well that makes perfect sense, reducing some regulations at the low cost of just a over a couple million peoples civil rights. It's laughable that you bring up ways for better protetions when arguing for something that does the exact opposite. I truly hope you don't have any LGBT members in you family, knowing a family member doesn't even think you deserve the same rights as them can really hurt.

I think you're confusing several arguments. This is largely a discussion about the effect of a law on trans people, so jumping from that to a claim that I think LGBT people in general don't deserve rights is massive stretch. My concern is also on the mechanism of a particular law, and not about whether trans people have rights (they do and they should.) The number of people affected jumped in your summary to several million, when you noted earlier there were 1.4 million trans individuals in the US (many of whom live in states with robust protections, and many others who will not be in a position to benefit from this particular type of protection.)

How??

How can you determine sex?

Explain that in a way that doesn't dehumanize the "various abnormalities"?

In most cases, sex matches reproductive organs. Otherwise, sex can be determined by chromosomal testing (where XX is female, and XY is male.) Any cases where there is an ambiguity can be labeled as such, without it reflecting in any way on the humanity of the individual involved. This is an impersonal label- that's the point. And it's a category that has medical benefits (IE- determining who is at risk for prostate or cervical cancer.)

So long as your party feels that it is not only okay but also necessary to cheat to win by repeatedly disenfranchising a large number of -- primarily black and latino -- voters you can't make any serious argument that your "party" wants to resolve things democratically.



Mets, you support a lying, cheating, climate-change denying, record-deficit raising, blatantly racist, sexist, and homophobic white supremacist party and while this is your "democratic" right, as I've pointed out before, people might accept that choice but there's nothing that says we have to accept the lies and hypocrisy behind said choice.

For someone who acts so concerned about "unintended consequences" of certain legislation, you constantly turn a blind eye when said legislation harms anyone outside of your "circle" -- at this point I don't expect better of you, but I likewise refuse to let you dodge the obvious.

You support a party that is actively seeking to prevent people like me from voting, Mets -- maybe in your world that's fine, but in mine it just makes you someone who routinely votes to deprive me of my rights to be treated equally as an American citizen.

-----
"The current campaign against the VRA is the result of three key factors: a whiter, more Southern, more conservative GOP that has responded to demographic change by trying to suppress an increasingly diverse electorate; a twenty-five-year effort to gut the VRA by conservative intellectuals, who in recent years have received millions of dollars from top right-wing funders, including Charles Koch; and a reactionary Supreme Court that does not support remedies to racial discrimination.

The push by conservatives to repeal Section 5 comes on the heels of what NAACP president Benjamin Jealous has called “the greatest attacks on voting rights since segregation.” After the 2010 election, GOP officials approved laws in more than a dozen states to restrict the right to vote by requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, shutting down voter registration drives, curtailing early voting, disenfranchising ex-felons and mandating government-issued photo IDs to cast a ballot — all of which disproportionately target communities of color..."

In Alabama, for example, Republicans targeted nearly every white Democrat in the state legislature for extinction but preserved the twenty-seven majority-minority districts in the House (even adding one more) as well as eight in the Senate in order to clear the maps with the feds. (At the time, the head of the Senate Rules Committee, Republican Scott Beason, referred to blacks as “aborigines.”)

“If there’s no Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act] all those majority-black districts are now vulnerable,” says Jim Blacksher, a longtime voting rights lawyer in Birmingham. “And there is no question in anybody’s mind what will happen next.”

He calls Section 5 “the most important sea anchor against the ongoing, uninterrupted, virulent white-supremacy culture that still dominates this state.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/wh...ng-rights-act/

I think you're responding to points I haven't made. I didn't claim that Republicans want the issue of civil rights for transgendered people to be decided democratically. They likely want to handle it any way that gets the policy goal they want, which is the same way Democrats went about it. To avoid this, the democratic process seems to be a useful compromise, especially in a situation that is driven by the application of a law passed by Congress in 1972.

Voting rights is a larger discussion, although the differences in effects are likely to be on the margin.

[Mister Mets]

What do you guys think of this 'caravan' of 7,000 people making their way from Central America to the United States?

This actually disturbs me the most

- The sheer amount of people: Where will they go? How will they work? Education? No background checks

- The timing: The timing of this before the midterms? I hardly believe this is a coincidence, but if yes, the GOP just got everything handed back to them in a big red bow.

- The organization: How was this planned? Where are they staying and how are these people being taken care of?

- What will happen? I'm a registered Democrat but in no way will take one extreme or side over the other. If these people want in, they should do it legally. Force is never the option

I'm guessing the timing of the caravan is determined by circumstances outside the US. It sure as hell isn't going to help Democrats, despite right-wing conspiracy theories, and it seems like there's too much potential for any Republicans involved to be caught.

But you have to respond in some way. Look at what "ignoring the bully" did for John Kerry.

It's unclear. Kerry did pretty well considering the circumstances (he was running against an incumbent war-time President.) Negative campaigns lower turnout, and Beto would need high turnout among people who don't usually vote in order to have a shot. It's an unfortunate reality that establishment candidates benefit from negative campaigns in multiple ways: by damaging their opponent's reputation, and by depressing turnout among swing voters.

Aren't they seeking asylum from dictators?

This gets messy. The overwhelming majority of Asylum applications are rejected, so while most of them may be seeking asylum, a relative few will be seen to be meeting the requirements.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...asylum-claims/

Has there been a 1,700 percent increase in asylum claims? The numbers stack up.

But the claims of gaming the system are less supported.

Trump is talking about "credible fear" cases, which is spelled out in the Refugee Act of 1980. It's available for people unable or unwilling to return to their home country "because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion."

Migrants who are apprehended or unable to enter the country legally can claim "credible fear" in order to get a hearing before an immigration court.

The Homeland Security Department tracks cases in which a decision to grant a hearing has been made, which differs only slightly from the number of all claims made.

In 2007, 5,171 people claimed credible fear and had their cases reviewed.

In 2016, it was 91,786.

That represents a 1,675 percent hike, basically as Trump claimed.

Between 60 and 80 percent of those cases were approved for further court review. Overall, 20 percent of applicants were ultimately granted asylum in fiscal year 2017, the Homeland Security Department told us.

[aja_christopher]

I think you're responding to points I haven't made. I didn't claim that Republicans want the issue of civil rights for transgendered people to be decided democratically. They likely want to handle it any way that gets the policy goal they want, which is the same way Democrats went about it. To avoid this, the democratic process seems to be a useful compromise, especially in a situation that is driven by the application of a law passed by Congress in 1972.

Correct -- because you keep dodging the fact that your party routinely engages in voter suppression, especially against African-Americans: you can't claim to support the "democratic process" while simultaneously supporting a party that routinely and illegally seeks to subvert said democratic process through blatantly racist policy and action -- as well as via allowing for and even promoting illegal Russian influence in our elections.

Not without looking like a complete hypocrite, that is.

The larger issue is your apparent completely subjective disregard for the rights of others -- I think it's clear to everyone here that if it were your rights that were being attacked, you wouldn't be so quick to accept such morally destitute behavior from your Republican representatives.

[Panfoot]

I think you're confusing several arguments. This is largely a discussion about the effect of a law on trans people, so jumping from that to a claim that I think LGBT people in general don't deserve rights is massive stretch. .

An effect of a law on trans people that involves their rights and would only result in damage to them. That's not a jump at all, that's exactly what it is.