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

[zinderel]

Thing is, I stopped voting 3rd Party after Nader, mostly out of spite. Even though I live in California and know that I could vote Green without affecting any Democratic Presidential candidate's chance of winning, I choose not to since all they have ever done is help Republicans win. If they got Ranked Choice Voting put on the state ballot (which would also likely overturn our current Runoff Election system), I would definitely vote for it. If it passed, I would probably put whomever the Green candidate was as my first choice EVERY. FUCKING. TIME! If nothing else, if a significant portion of the liberal electorate did the same, they could probably easily reach the 5% threshold to be included in the debates. The fact that they haven't seemed to have tried getting the electoral process changed and instead keep trying the same tactic they have been for over 2 decades (shitting all over the Democratic Party), with abso-fucking-lutely zero increase in their turnout, tells me that they aren't really trying to win any national elections.

On another note, I think it would be hilarious to see a Green Party candidate win a Congressional seat in one of the states. Watching their base devour them the first time they had to compromise to get a bill passed would be FUCKING GOLDEN!

This is EXACTLY when and why I stopped supporting the Greens. I was a registered member of the Oregon Working Families Party for years after leaving the Green Party, and only registered Democrat to vote for Bernie in the primary, but I've stayed registered as such because at this point, it's the only party with a chance of getting the thugs in the Republican party out of power.

[Mecegirl]

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...-closures.html



Gee, remind me what the big deal about Stacey Abrams is again? Seems /awfully/ convenient this plan would appear now.

I WONDER WHY THAT IS.

Stuff like this makes me scared. Like I'm pullin for Abrams. I really want my state to go blue more often, but **** is just so rigged here.

[numberthirty]

just hit submit once. it will post. if it asks to leave page, do so.

Yep.

Attempt exactly what is described there(assuming that you are getting that "Wait "X" Amount Of Seconds..." dialog), and see if there is still a resulting double post.

One thing to look for is if what you meant to post now shows up at the bottom of the page that the dialog appears on.

[Handsome men don't lose fights]

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...-closures.html



Gee, remind me what the big deal about Stacey Abrams is again? Seems /awfully/ convenient this plan would appear now.

I WONDER WHY THAT IS.

The scumbags know they can't win with merit so it's by hook or by crook. Mitch McConnell's turkey neck must be waddling in an approximation of human delight that he assumes that mammals do when they're happy.

[Iron Maiden]

So Trump just ordered former CIA Director John Brennan to have his security clearance stripped for... "instability", because of course there's no irony in that.

This is, of course, an order given my a toxic narcissist from his personal NJ golf course, who's desperate to bury the lede so the main story on cable news isn't "Manafort guilty" or "Omarosa clowns racist president". It's petty, but it's still only the craziest thing happening during the Trump administration today, at best.

And as usual, stone silence from Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, etc. Dollars to donuts that the slimy Trump Whisperer Sean Hannity was all over this too. The curious inclusion on that list that was read at the press conference is Susan Rice, who was Obama's ambassador to the U.N and then later national security advisor, hasn't made many public statements at all since the election.... but she is African American.

Also indicative that this is all bluster and distraction, representatives for James Comey and Andrew McCabe said that it is customary for ex-F.B.I. staff to be "read out" when leaving government so they had no clearance to lose

And the date of the order was July 26th, showing that Trump sat on this for while, which many have noted is most likely tossed out as a "shiny object" to serve as a distraction from the Omarosa drama.

Trump digs another hole for himself by admitting this is another action linked to his irritation over the Russia investigation

[aja_christopher]

And as usual, stone silence from Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, etc. Dollars to donuts that the slimy Trump Whisperer Sean Hannity was all over this too. The curious inclusion on that list that was read at the press conference is Susan Rice, who was Obama's ambassador to the U.N and then later national security advisor, hasn't made many public statements at all since the election.... but she is African American.

Useless traitors.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Trump Revokes Former CIA Director John Brennan’s Security Clearance

Sarah Huckabee Sanders says Brennan, a vocal critic of the president, has exhibited “erratic conduct and behavior.” So, criticizing Trump instead of not kissing his ass is considered erratic behavior? Right, gotcha! Meanwhile....

**********

Criticized For Racism, Trump Goes After Black Former National Security Adviser

Susan Rice’s name is included on a list of officials who have criticized Trump, even though she has kept a relatively low profile. More grist for the "Trump is a racist" mill. At the very least, this shows the thin-skinned demagogue won't tolerate criticism. Pathetic.

**********

FCC Shuts Down Alex Jones’ Flagship Pirate Radio Station In Texas

Liberty Radio had broadcast the far-right conspiracy theorist’s show without authorization for years. That should've happened a long time ago.

**********

Kellyanne Conway Wanted To Criticize Her Husband — But As An Anonymous Source

George Conway admitted he regrets introducing his wife to Donald Trump in this wild Washington Post profile. How nice of Sewer Rat Barbie to put her boss before her husband. Why am I not surprised?

**********

Laura Ingraham Is Mainstreaming White Supremacy, But She’s Not Alone

The Unite the Right rally in Washington last weekend was minuscule compared with the crowd of counterprotesters who showed up to meet them. A mere two dozen fans of the far-right showed up to face the hundreds who rallied for racial justice. While those numbers are on the side of what is good in this world, it would be a mistake to think that white supremacy has been defeated. In fact, it’s not even in retreat.

Instead, white supremacy is being mainstreamed, and media outlets ― liberal and conservative ― and tech platforms are helping.

Let’s start with the conservative media, where Fox News has been doing what Roger Ailes intended it to do when he launched it in 1996: driving the political discourse further and further to the right.

On her Fox News show last week, Laura Ingraham launched into a diatribe about “massive demographic changes have been foisted on the American people, and they are changes that none of us ever voted for, and most of us don’t like ... this is related to both illegal and legal immigration.” Ingraham’s conclusion: “The America we know and love doesn’t exist anymore.”

Ingraham’s anti-immigrant screed was so thoroughly consistent with the playbook of white supremacy that David Duke, the proponent of white nationalism and former Klansman, tweeted his support and called it “one of the most important (truthful) monologues in the history of MSM.” On the following night’s show, Ingraham disavowed Duke’s response and insisted that her comments were “not about race or ethnicity.” But as part of the wide campaign at Fox News to make the abhorrent more palatable, she has been pushing white supremacist talking points into the mainstream for years.

But it’s not just conservative media and avowed white nationalists who are pulling previously fringe ideas toward the center.

National Public Radio, widely regarded as left-leaning, but really just barely a liberal radio network, has helped mainstream white supremacy, too. Last week Noel King, host of “Morning Edition,” interviewed Jason Kessler, organizer of last year’s deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and this year’s in D.C. King asked Kessler about his beliefs about different races of people, providing Kessler a platform to broadcast his white supremacist views uninterrupted ― and unchecked ― to a national audience. Some in that audience probably thought Kessler’s unreconstructed racism sounded like a reasonable set of ideas.

Others excoriated NPR for the interview. The network defended the interview. “Interviewing the people in the news is part of NPR’s mission to inform the American public, it does not mean NPR is endorsing one view over another,” the network said in a statement. “Our job is to present the facts and the voices that provide context on the day’s events, not to protect our audience from views that might offend them.”

In granting someone like Kessler an on-air interview because its “job is to present facts and voices,” NPR is every bit as complicit in the mainstreaming of white supremacy as Fox News. It just uses a more modulated tone. And, in giving Kessler a platform to spout white supremacist talking points, NPR moves those ideas to the center of political discourse. This may be an unintended consequence. It is nonetheless consequential. Under the guise of “both sides” journalism, NPR is helping to make white supremacist ideas mainstream.

[Mister Mets]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a candidate that people like you are telling me not to vote for because they are too "pure" and most people thought did not have a chance to win.

So you're in her district?

In a perfect world, America would have more than two political parties. In a perfect world, the ability to vote for whoever we like would be a privilege. Sadly, the world we live in gives us two parties to choose from, and occasional spoilers on either side. A few years ago, it was people like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader. More recently, it was Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. Until both Democrat and Republican parties split into 'conservative' and 'radical' wings at LEAST, we have only one choice to make: The Republican, or the Democrat. Period. It sucks, but...it's what we have to live with. ESPECIALLY in an election year. So until the parties split into multiple, viable parties, we are stuck.

Huh....maybe that's why we have an election every 2 years...Main terms and midterms. To make it nearly impossible for any new parties to have a chance to gather support and become viable during the off years?

That explanation doesn't quite work. The timing of elections was determined before the modern political parties emerged. Parties have disappeared and risen since then. Case in point: Whigs.

The current system is biased towards two parties due to first past the post, elected executives, the nationalization of politics (which makes the emergence of new localized movements unlikely) and electoral majorities for power.

The emergence of a new party would probably require a period of overwhelming dominance for one party followed by a split within or an overriding issue that takes precedence over earlier divisions and becomes the dominant fault line (as occurred with slavery in the 1850s.)

[catbellysqueezer]

You guys keep saying you all would love to vote progressive if they had a chance to win, but every one of you right now is actively trying to make sure they never do have a chance by telling people they have to vote for whatever slop they've got with a D behind their name and calling everyone who does vote for progressives an idiot.

You are fighting against the thing you claim to support.

[Carabas]

You guys keep saying you all would love to vote progressive if they had a chance to win, but every one of you right now is actively trying to make sure they never do have a chance by telling people they have to vote for whatever slop they've got with a D behind their name and calling everyone who does vote for progressives an idiot.

You are fighting against the thing you claim to support.

Do you have a realistic way that can actually work to prevent four more years of Trump and to take back Congress that does not involve voting for Democrats?

[catbellysqueezer]

Do you have a realistic way that can actually work to prevent four more years of Trump and to take back Congress that does not involve voting for Democrats?

The majority of Americans support higher minimum wages, higher taxes on the rich, universal health care, and many other progressive ideas, so if every American decided to vote for a candidate that represents their opinions, we would have all of those things tomorrow.

But instead we have every progressive in the country going around telling other progressives that progressives have no chance of winning contrary to what polling says.

[aja_christopher]

You guys keep saying you all would love to vote progressive if they had a chance to win, but every one of you right now is actively trying to make sure they never do have a chance by telling people they have to vote for whatever slop they've got with a D behind their name and calling everyone who does vote for progressives an idiot.

You keep (perhaps deliberately) misrepresenting your "opposition": what most people here "keep saying" is that you should vote in a manner that's most politically expedient towards achieving the many mutual goals shared by those on the "left" while likewise asking for dialogue regarding specific candidates, policies and regions in order to better achieve said goals.

For the most part no one is calling anyone an "idiot" just for being progressive -- instead you are being asked to engage in logical discourse and you seem to be taking offense just because people are challenging your viewpoint with rational arguments and political realities.

[ed2962]

I'm not sure how that contradicts my point? Protest votes get 'the enemy' elected. The splintering of the left into factions who cannot unite or work together leads to protest votes for people who will not help us move forward, be they Jill Stein or Donald Trump, or Santa Claus. A protest vote is like writing a letter to Santa Claus and posting it online - at best, you get nothing you asked for, because Santa Claus isn't real. At worst, criminals now know your name, your address, and what you hope for, and will work to demolish all of it.

My point is that we need to put pride aside, and stop undermining ourselves with foolishness like protest votes and write-ins and learn to swallow our distaste for 'the impure' who don't espouse 100% of our personal laundry list of goals. That means gay people need to suck it up and vote for someone who might not be perfect on gay rights, if that person has the broader goals of the left and a track record to back it up. Same with People of Color. OBVIOUSLY don't support a rabid homophobe or racist, because those people are not left leaning at all if they have that kind of irrational hatred in their hearts. But when is the last time we saw a serious Democratic candidate who hates gays or people of color? The 60's? The 70's?

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez won her primary due to the passionate support of her voters, and now is the candidate on the ballot, yeah? If the Democrats cannot put aside whatever squabbles they have with her policies being 'too leftist!' or 'not leftist enough!', she will lose, and Republicans will win and everyone suffers. Same way Hillary was a corporatist centrist and the hard leftists refused to swallow their pride and insistence on purity, didn't rally themselves to support her despite her imperfections, and we got Trump. ANYONE who is a leftist/progressive and thinks that Clinton would have been worse for us than Trump is a selfish idiot and doesn't deserve attention. I'm sorry. Like it or not, incremental change is the best we can hope for, barring a revolution. And frankly, I would rather avoid that kind of figurative and literal bloodshed, if possible.

My point was that there were enough people who didn't like either the mainstream democrats or the mainstream republican party so they voted for the TV star who no one ( including himself) thought would win. These were protest votes and people taking a stand against "political correctness." Not votes for actual policies. Also keep in mind that a lot of conservatives stayed home election night too. It wasn't just "progressives" being too pure...

[Mecegirl]

You guys keep saying you all would love to vote progressive if they had a chance to win, but every one of you right now is actively trying to make sure they never do have a chance by telling people they have to vote for whatever slop they've got with a D behind their name and calling everyone who does vote for progressives an idiot.

You are fighting against the thing you claim to support.

You ever gonna give an example of someone running in your state that you support? Or just keep talking in circles?

[catbellysqueezer]

You ever gonna give an example of someone running in your state that you support? Or just keep talking in circles?

I'm not stupid, the only reason you want to know who I support is so you can dig up dirt on whoever I say, rather than responding to the actual point I am trying to make, which is why people are insisting that candidates who support policies that the majority of Americans support supposedly have no chance of winning.

Like when Bernie Sanders was leading in polls vs. Trump by double digits but people told me not to vote for him because he was a Socialist with no name recognition.