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

[PaulBullion]

Yeah and do think she would have done any of that if the gay rights movement was not gaining steam on its own if gay rights were still unpopular, was she a great gay rights crusader back in the 90s when she was the first lady. Yeah sorry, this why people she has no real ideas and just latches on to things when they became popular, she has poll results, not actual ideals.

And if you want privilege, what about your Western privilege? Where because you ignore want all the damage she did by voting for the Iraq war and supporting the war in Libya caused, thousands dead and groups like ISIS becoming more powerful in the process, you treating that stuff as unimportant because Clinton jumped on the gay rights bandwagon when there was less of a political cost to her? Why are ignoring that her support of gay rights makes the rest of her record irrelevant, what to support gay rights you have to support a war hawk too? That's a false choice and you know it.

And what evidence is there that Bernie Sanders would not have advanced gay rights if he got into office.

Oh, go cuddle a Trumpy Bear™. I told you I was done with your privileged patootie.

[PaulBullion]

Things only Republicans can get away with:

White House confirms Trump will not visit Arlington cemetery on Veteran’s Day as rain is expected

Could Trump be dying?

[The Overlord]

Oh, go cuddle a Trumpy Bear™. I told you I was done with your privileged patootie.

Great come back.

I dislike Trump as much as you do, but I think trying to use the Clinton machine and third way policies to defeat him after it failed the last time is crazy.

And you seem unwilling to deal with your own Western privilege, so you have no basis to lecture me on privilege, when deeming Clinton's record as a war hawk irrelevant and constantly create false choices between left economic issues and social issues. Frankly, I think you do not want to debate on a real policy level because you know policy wise someone like Bernie Sanders will beat someone like Hillary Clinton any day of the week.

Trump beat Clinton by attacking her flaws, a candidate who was less flawed would have had a better chance and you say want me to stop relitigating 2016 election, but its pretty clear we have to pick a clear path forward to challenge Trump, the left wing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez way or the Republican-lite way of Joe Manchin.

[PaulBullion]

In addition to disrespecting the troops in France a few days ago, and in the US today, Trump also demanded that the absentee ballots from overseas not be counted for the FL election - ballots mostly cast by the troops.


He also hasn't paid a single visit to a war zone yet.

[The Overlord]

But here is an interesting question and I would love anyone to answer this, why does there have to be a choice between choosing between left economic issues and left-wing social issues, why is it one or the other? Why can't someone choose both? Especially economics and structural racism are interrelated.

[Malvolio]

Great come back.

I dislike Trump as much as you do, but I think trying to use the Clinton machine and third way policies to defeat him after it failed the last time is crazy.

And you seem unwilling to deal with your own Western privilege, so you have no basis to lecture me on privilege, when deeming Clinton's record as a war hawk irrelevant and constantly create false choices between left economic issues and social issues. Frankly, I think you do not want to debate on a real policy level because you know policy wise someone like Bernie Sanders will beat someone like Hillary Clinton any day of the week.

Trump beat Clinton by attacking her flaws, a candidate who was less flawed would have had a better chance and you say want me to stop relitigating 2016 election, but its pretty clear we have to pick a clear path forward to challenge Trump, the left wing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez way or the Republican-lite way of Joe Manchin.

And how do you know that Bernie would have won? Do you have a crystal ball that can look into alternate realities? I submit that if Bernie had won the nomination, "Crazy Bernie" would have become just as widespread a meme as "Crooked Hillary" did.

[PaulBullion]

Dick Scott’s lawsuit for an injunction against Broward County was DENIED.

[PaulBullion]

I hate to spread conspiracy theories... so I will start one instead:

There is something more wrong than usual with Trump.

Kelly wouldn't just let him play hooky from so many "honor the troops" events if the alternative wasn't worse. Apparently Trump is unable to be in public for more than a few hours at a time now (which may also be why he was 2 hours late for dinner in Paris and didn't join the other heads of state on their transportation to the arc de triomphe.)

Quite a few of Trump's recent tweets were also quite clearly written by a lawyer, while his own were as incoherent as they get.

[The Overlord]

And how do you know that Bernie would have won? Do you have a crystal ball that can look into alternate realities? I submit that if Bernie had won the nomination, "Crazy Bernie" would have become just as widespread a meme as "Crooked Hillary" did.

I cannot say for certain that Bernie would have won, but was Clinton really the safe choice if she lost?

By not addresding ecomonic issues in a relevant manner, she ceeded a ton of ground to Trump. When Trump criticized NAFTA what was Clinton's response?

Maybe Sanders would lost, but maybe him running could have moved the needle, because the GOP has been setting the terms of the debate since the 80s and the Dems let them, the only way to stop Trumpism is to flip the script, electing Clinton would not have destroyed Trumpism. Dems have to start fighting for progressive causes at all levels and stop being weak, under Obama's leadership the Dems lost several state house and seats, the President is not the only important office. Either fight with all your strength for a truly better world or get ready for endless sea of Trump political figures in the future.

[Dalak]

But here is an interesting question and I would love anyone to answer this, why does there have to be a choice between choosing between left economic issues and left-wing social issues, why is it one or the other? Why can't someone choose both? Especially economics and structural racism are interrelated.

Everything is interrelated, but there are times you are forced by the circumstances to make a choice. Like it or not (I do not) the 2 party system is the one we have to deal with, and that means we have to vote for one of the big 2 if there's any hope of our vote to count. All that I've seen since 2000 (Including now after the 2018 elections) shows that protest votes or voting for a third party with no real infrastructure or power not only prove ineffectual but can cause the politician that agrees most with your views to lose when the vote is split. I encourage people to run/back whichever politician they choose, but to vote for the one that can win if their chosen candidate doesn't make it out of the primary - And I say this as someone who voted for Bernie in the primary. Vote for the chance of progress as opposed to allowing those who would tear down everything they think they can get away with while pissing on anyone who tries to stop them or dissents in the slightest.

I don't think there are as many of the Manchin-lites (Not neo-liberals, that's clearly not a term with any firm meaning) in the Dems as you do, but there are enough of them to cause trouble and they should be gotten rid of. However unless the rest are given the ability to punish these guys rather than tolerate them in order to have a hope at a majority then nothing will ever be done. These are the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

E: Oh, complaints about Clinton without acknowledging all the other thumbs on the scale is disingenuous at best.

[Tami]

Weather forecast menacing for crews battling deadly California wildfires

I can't even begin to come up with the words to describe how horrendous and tragic this is.

[The Overlord]

Everything is interrelated, but there are times you are forced by the circumstances to make a choice. Like it or not (I do not) the 2 party system is the one we have to deal with, and that means we have to vote for one of the big 2 if there's any hope of our vote to count. All that I've seen since 2000 (Including now after the 2018 elections) shows that protest votes or voting for a third party with no real infrastructure or power not only prove ineffectual but can cause the politician that agrees most with your views to lose when the vote is split. I encourage people to run/back whichever politician they choose, but to vote for the one that can win if their chosen candidate doesn't make it out of the primary - And I say this as someone who voted for Bernie in the primary. Vote for the chance of progress as opposed to allowing those who would tear down everything they think they can get away with while pissing on anyone who tries to stop them or dissents in the slightest.

I don't think there are as many of the Manchin-lites (Not neo-liberals, that's clearly not a term with any firm meaning) in the Dems as you do, but there are enough of them to cause trouble and they should be gotten rid of. However unless the rest are given the ability to punish these guys rather than tolerate them in order to have a hope at a majority then nothing will ever be done. These are the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

E: Oh, complaints about Clinton without acknowledging all the other thumbs on the scale is disingenuous at best.

I would not suggest anyone vote for third party in a swing state in a federal election. That being said, while people have a civic duty to vote, the Dems do not have a right to your vote, if they cannot make a convincing argument for someone's vote, that person has the right to vote for someone else. Its the Dems job to earn votes, its not the voters job to vote Dem.

And if you want argue there were factors against Clinton, that is true. I am sure sexism played a part in her defeat and she would have won if not for the Electoral College. But if she thought the Electoral College was unfair, she should have started a campaign against it years before the election. Really progressives have a massive handicap in the current system, you can try to change it or leave it place and get a million Trump clones in the future. Trump is a product of the system, Trumpism is not going anywhere if we just the Electoral College, gerrymandering and the disgrace we see in Georgia go unchallenged.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

In addition to disrespecting the troops in France a few days ago, and in the US today, Trump also demanded that the absentee ballots from overseas not be counted for the FL election - ballots mostly cast by the troops.


He also hasn't paid a single visit to a war zone yet.

And Trump won’t visit one. Period. He’s either too afraid of being close to a combat area, especially Iraq or Afghanistan where one lunatic with a hidden bomb vest might get past security to cause havoc, or Trump worries that he can’t control the makeup of the crowd, i.e., pack it with MAGA happy sycophants.

I hate to spread conspiracy theories... so I will start one instead:

There is something more wrong than usual with Trump.

Kelly wouldn't just let him play hooky from so many "honor the troops" events if the alternative wasn't worse. Apparently Trump is unable to be in public for more than a few hours at a time now (which may also be why he was 2 hours late for dinner in Paris and didn't join the other heads of state on their transportation to the arc de triomphe.)

Quite a few of Trump's recent tweets were also quite clearly written by a lawyer, while his own were as incoherent as they get.

My uninformed theory: I think the loss of the House to the Democrats unhinged Trump, and if wasn’t for a stacked deck in the Senate, he might’ve lost that as well, then he really would’ve had a meltdown. And with Mueller continuing to breathe down his neck, Trump is feeling the heat, and he’s having trouble dealing with the pressure.

[Tami]

And Trump won’t visit one. Period. He’s either too afraid of being close to a combat area, especially Iraq or Afghanistan where one lunatic with a hidden bomb vest might get past security to cause havoc, or Trump worries that he can’t control the makeup of the crowd, i.e., pack it with MAGA happy sycophants.



My uninformed theory: I think the loss of the House to the Democrats unhinged Trump, and if wasn’t for a stacked deck in the Senate, he might’ve lost that as well, then he really would’ve had a meltdown. And with Mueller continuing to breathe down his neck, Trump is feeling the heat, and he’s having trouble dealing with the pressure.

The Senate isn't as stacked as it seems. 3 seats are still up for grabs. The Democrats will take Arizona. Unless new votes are found, the Republicans will probably take Florida, but there is some uncertainty. the last one won't be determined until December.

The Democrats have 46 now, 47 with Sinema. If the Democrats take the runoff, that's 48. If something happens in Florida, it might even be 49, though that's a long shot.

Bottom line, the Democrats may Break Even when all is said and done. No worse off than they were before the election.

[Kirby101]

The only reason that Florida is a long shot is the Republicans are trying to make sure all the votes aren't counted.