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

[ZombieHavoc]

As someone has said, "The wages of smugness is Trump." That is, Trump is what you'll get if you're smug. And you'll deserve him.

Trump is definitely smug, right...

And I see someone has bought into the GOP immigration line hard as shit. I know you've been on about immigrants before.

I don't know Trump calling Mexicans "rapists" has to do with labor but we all know that labor was not the actual point.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Crimes and misdemeanors:

New York GOP Rep. Chris Collins arrested over insider trading charges

Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y., has been arrested on insider trading charges lodged by the Justice Department, law enforcement officials said Wednesday morning.

An indictment obtained from a federal grand jury also charges Collins' son, Cameron Collins, as well as the father of his fiancee, Stephen Zarsky.

The indictment relates to Australian biotech company Innate Immunotherapeutics, on which Collins served as a board member.

In June 2017, Collins passed nonpublic information about Innate's drug trial results to his son in order to help him "make timely trades in Innate stock and tip others," the indictment alleges.

His son then traded on that inside information and passed it to Zarsky, along with numerous unnamed co-conspirators, "so that they could utilize the information for the same purpose," according to the indictment.

Zarsky, too, allegedly traded on the inside knowledge and passed it along to yet more unnamed co-conspirators.

In total, the three defendants avoided "over $768,000 in losses that they would have otherwise incurred" had they sold their stock after the information was made public, according to the indictment.

I wonder if Dolt45 will pardon him should he end up in jail?

[Trey Strain]

Trump is definitely smug, right...

And I see someone has bought into the GOP immigration line hard as shit. I know you've been on about immigrants before.

I don't know Trump calling Mexicans "rapists" has to do with labor but we all know that labor was not the actual point.

I don't recall ever saying one word here about immigration. Or even about ILLEGAL immigration, which is what Bannon is talking about.

You can say that Trump won because people are stupid and evil, and see how far that gets you. That's the smug approach. Who knows, it might finally start to work if you keep at it. But you'd be smarter to look at how he actually did it.

Anyway, if people are so stupid and evil, then why do care? Why are you even talking about it?

[Carabas]

They did nothing in regards to those issues when they had Congress at the beginning of Obama's first term.

Are you kidding?

Of course they did.

[aja_christopher]

Well, you can call people stupid if that makes you feel smarter.

I never made that claim anywhere in either my initial post or my initial response -- statistics showed that highly educated racists (and supporters of racist campaigns) voted for him as well.

------
"Blame Trump’s Victory on College-Educated Whites, Not the Working Class"

"The failure to engage the white working class has been described as a grave tactical error, and that may well be true, given the slim margin of victory in swing states. But the media’s obsessive focus on this voting bloc would leave you to believe that Trump’s voters largely live in areas hit by the decline in manufacturing, are suffering from economic anxiety, and turned out last Tuesday to voice their disdain for smug urban elitists. But this narrative paints a misleading picture of the typical Trump voter, and by doing so, lets off the hook an entire class of voters who are at least as responsible for Trump’s victory: middle-class and wealthy suburban whites, who also came out in droves for Trump and who make up a larger part of his coalition.

The average Trump voter is not poorly educated or unemployed, nor does he live in a rural area. Back in May, FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver punctured the myth of the “working class” being Trump’s voter base: In exit polls of 23 states from the primaries, all showed a higher median income for Trump supporters than the national average, usually around $70,000. Exit polls last week, while not definitive, reveal that both college-educated white men and college educated white women voted for Trump by much higher than expected margins.

The voters Clinton really lost—the ones she was targeting and relying on for victory—were college-educated whites. Most polling suggested she would win these voters, but she didn’t, according to exit polls: White men went 63 percent for Trump versus 31 percent for Clinton, and white women went 53-43 percent.

Among college-educated whites, only 39 percent of men and 51 percent of women voted for Clinton.

Clinton’s strategy made sense. Trump’s negatives among this group, which normally leans Republican (Romney won them by six points), were pretty high in polling. What’s more, these people hadn’t suffered under Obama; they’d thrived. The kind of change Trump was espousing wasn’t supposed to connect with this group. A massive Gallup study in August revealed that the typical Trump supporter has “not been disproportionately affected by foreign trade or immigration. The results suggest that his supporters, on average, do not have lower incomes than other Americans, nor are they more likely to be unemployed.”

Perhaps, then, these Trump voters are the most deplorable of them all. They’re not suffering or desperate, and have no concrete reason to hate the status quo or to feel like they are in decline. They understand that Trump is manifestly unprepared to be president, have heard his many lies and insults, yet voted for him anyway. And without them, Trump wouldn’t have won. The media ought to focus on their motivations, too—and reporters won’t even have to fly to Youngstown to find them."

https://newrepublic.com/article/1387...-working-class

[Trey Strain]

The narrative that I'm seeing emerge here is that the United States elected a black president TWICE, but then suddenly became stupid and evil, and elected Trump.

Wow. How did such an amazing thing happen?

Well, no, it wasn't like that. The country didn't become stupid and evil overnight. This happened because the elites eagerly and smugly dumped on the working class for 25 years, and thus cleared the path to the presidency for Trump.

And they're still eagerly and smugly dumping on them.

[Dalak]

I don't recall ever saying one word here about immigration. Or even about ILLEGAL immigration, which is what Bannon is talking about.

You can say that Trump won because people are stupid and evil, and see how far that gets you. That's the smug approach. Who knows, it might finally start to work if you keep at it. But you'd be smarter to look at how he actually did it.

Anyway, if people are so stupid and evil, then why do care? Why are you even talking about it?

His post immediately before that:

Well, you can call people stupid if that makes you feel smarter. But you need to ask yourself -- who was Trump talking to? The answer is, he was talking to American laborers.

Now why did that stuff about building a wall resonate with American laborers? Was it because they're stupid and despicable people? Or was it because almost everyone who is crossing the border illegally is a laborer, who will work under the table and will manage to survive here by having several families in one house?

And since I didn't spot the person you quoted use the word Stupid earlier I think you are stunningly . . misinformed

[Mister Mets]

Question for Republicans who vote for Republicans, why do you keep voting for Republicans that don't like Poor and Middle Class Republicans.

Are the "Liberal Tears" worth it that badly?

Marco is not a gentleman Senator, he's a crook like the rest of the GOP and Many Democrats taking that corporate money.

Rubio’s New Parental Leave Plan Is Funded With Your Retirement Savings
Critics say it’s a backdoor Social Security cut that would particularly disadvantage women and leave out most people who need paid leave.

I do support this policy, but it has nothing to do with liberal tears.

It provides people an option that can make things better for them at a time when they need money. And it does this without raising taxes or placing burdens on business.

Had a talk with my dad today. He's a pretty hardcore Republican, but not a Trump fan. He listens to Right Wing talk radio outlets like Mike Fuckabee and Lars Larson and the like, and owns several Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michele Malkin and David Barton books, so...

Anyway, we were talking about the Manafort trial, and he was rolling his eyes at the Russia stuff - much like it seems the judge is - and I mentioned that the 'Russia stuff' is important because it proves that Manafort was taking money from Russian operatives and laundering it, and since he was Trump's campaign manager, that raises a lot of questions. He says that if Trump goes down, then they better damn make sure to take down Obama and Clinton. I look at him for a second, and say, "Uh...for what?" So he brings up the old saws about Benghazi and emails, and Whitewater and Marc Rich. So I remind him that Republicans have been trying to get her for over 30 years and never gotten a thing, which means one of two things - Either she is a brilliant supervillain on par with Norman Osborne (In which case, why isn't she President right now...?) or...there just isn't any THERE there...

So he pivots. "What do you think of that Democrat senator...Elizabeth...Elizabeth Warren. She wants to tax the rich at FIFTY PERCENT. Is she trying to kill America?! We should have a flat tax rate that's the same for everyone!"

I took a moment, collected my thoughts, and said, "Good, but it's not enough. We SHOULD go back to taxing the rich at the rate we did under FDR, post WW2. After all, if I make $1,000 a year, and you make $100,000,000, and we are both taxed, let's say....50%. Who takes a bigger hit?"

Dad: "Well, the rich guy! He loses more money!"
Me: "No...*sigh* He still has $50 million, I now have $500. I took a bigger blow."
Dad: "Why do you leftists hate rich people getting to keep the money they work for?"
Me: "Because most of them didn't DO any work! They got rich off of the backs of people like you and me, working our ASSES off to survive while they sit on piles of money! They don't spend it on anything that stimulates the economy! They don't create jobs, because creating jobs means less money for them!"
Dad: "If liberals get their way, you know what'll happen? The rich will leave America and take their money with them! Then where will we be!"
Me: "GOOD! Let them flee! Where are they gonna go? Russia?! Why should we let the rich continue holding America hostage and blackmail us into continuing to suck their dicks and thanking them for the privilege!?"
Dad: "You sound like you want a civil war! You know who'll win, right? The side with all the guns. And which side is that again...?"
Me: "So, in addition to financially blackmailing us, gaslighting us, and holding us fjnancially hostage to their mands, the rich are threatening us with violence from their thugs if we don't give them everything they want? And you think this is OK?!"
Dad: "Ok, I'm done with this conversation."
Me: "Fine. But lemme just say...I don't WANT a civil war in this country. But maybe we NEED one. Like how I didn't want Trump to win the Presidency because...well, I've paid attention and knew what kind of man he is and was able to extrapolate from that to predict what kind of president he would be, but maybe his presidency is one we NEEDED to wake people up. And maybe a civil war, or a French Revolution style uprising is what we NEED right now to remind people where the power belongs: with us, the people, not them, the wealthy."

So...fucking Republicans, man. Even when they're on our side about Trump, they would still happily kill us or see us dead to maintain the income gap that they think they have a chance of breaching.

"The reason socialism never took root in America is because the poor have been convinced they are merely temporarily inconvenienced millionaires."

I don't think your dad's wrong to say $50 million is a bigger hit than $500. You phrased that question wrong if you wanted a different result. You could have asked which will hurt more: $50million from someone with $100million or $500 from 100,000 people with $1,000.

Incidentally, do you use gaslighting in conversation with your conservative dad?

Isn't supporting people because they are less-bad the whole reason the overton window has shifted so far to the right? You can't even talk about raising the minimum wage in most places nowadays.

Imagine this hypothetical scenario:

Candidate A is pro-slavery
Candidate B is anti-slavery but pro-segregation.
Candidate C (who you've been told has little chance to win) is anti-slavery and anti-segregation.

Who do you vote for and why?

We're not really dealing with candidates who fall in these three categories. In your example, Donald Trump holds the same beliefs as Candidate C.

So we if we elect a ton of centrist candidates who are on record as being opposed to universal health care, they will all suddenly change their mind?

It would probably be better for Democrats to win as many seats as possible, and then have the arguments be between members of their party in the legislature. When LBJ was President, he had 68 Senators at the height of his power. Some were much more conservative than the typical Republican, and a few held views that were disgusting, but this gave the party flexibility when it came to ambitious legislation.

There's nothing to debate about it. The Republicans have succeeded by moving to the right, and the Democrats have failed by moving to the center. Yet the Democrats keep doing the same thing and hoping for a better outcome.

Bill Clinton was the person who started this, and the Democrats refuse to move past it. They foolishly pine for the days of Slick Willie.

The measures of liberalism and conservatism tend to be about where someone is on a relative scale to their contemporaries, but that doesn't show whether they've moved to the right, the center, or the left.

In many ways, society has moved to the left. There are laws on gay marriage that would have seen outrageous twenty years ago, and absolute spending has increased.

The question would be what specific laws are more conservative than comparative laws a decade ago.

[aja_christopher]

The narrative that I'm seeing emerge here is that the United States elected a black president TWICE, but then suddenly became stupid and evil, and elected Trump.

Wow. How did such an amazing thing happen?

The Tea Party, hardline Republican obstructionism, the "terrorist fist bump", Black Lives Matter, gerrymandering and minority voter suppression, The Birther Movement ("headed" by Trump) and Russian interference to name a few things... and he still lost the popular vote like most other Republican presidents and had to depend on an outdated electoral college system -- that appropriately enough was created to protect slaveholder state's interests -- to win the election.

It's discussed here daily in case you missed it: there's even an ongoing trial about the "Russian" thing right now, but I think you just ignore that side of the story because you'd rather complain about "Democrats".

Which is why it doesn't make much sense to argue with you about it.

[Malvolio]

Here's the reason why Third Party candidates generally don't win. The Democrats and Republicans have a more or less set number of members who will ALWAYS vote for their party straight down the line, every election. That gives each of those parties a big head start on any third party. So the third party candidate has to make up a lot of ground to even have a chance. Now, in places where they've made inroads, like Maine or Vermont, they actually do win from time to time. But in most districts, the best they can hope for is to spoil things for the major party they're closer to politically.

So unless you live in a district where a third party has made it to the same status as the Democrats and Republicans, voting for a third party candidate will only guarantee that the candidate furthest from that third party candidate will win.

[Trey Strain]

His post immediately before that:



And since I didn't spot the person you quoted use the word Stupid earlier I think you are stunningly . . misinformed

Accusing someone of being misinformed is smug.

Sir, that post you quoted was from TODAY. Yes, I have talked about immigration TODAY. I said I don't recall talking about it before TODAY.

If I have ever talked about it, I've never embraced Trump's policies about it. It was in the context of analyzing why he won.

Now, let's see what Mr. Christopher has talked about today:

"..the appeal of baseline racism and homophobia to the Republican party.."

Really, how is that going to change anyone's mind about anything? Is it even meant to? Or is it just virtue signaling?

[ed2962]

Democrats are cowards in search of this mythical Republican unicorn who will see the light and turn to the blue as opposed to shoring up the people that actually want to vote for them but get spit in the face on because they are preventing those gullible fools from capturing their white whale. Party needs to understand it’s makeup.

1. They aren’t a monolith like Republicans and the base will abandon you if you don’t give yjrm a bone.
2. No Republicans are switching sides for you.
3. You have a base, you should probably understand what they want

I don't think it's any accident that Cortez is making headlines because she did the opposite of most establishment Democrats. Instead of trying to appear as safe and "practical" as possible, she ran an actual left wing campaign and was able to take it to the people.

[Trey Strain]

Anyone who wants to talk about Russia or tax cuts for the rich is welcome to do that. What I'm talking about is how the Democrats talked into a propeller blade and lost the election. I don't see why anyone has a problem with my talking about that.

The Democrats can figure out how it happened, or they can refuse to talk about it and demand to talk about the Republicans instead, and they can walk into that same blade again.

I think they're going to do it again in 2020.

[Dalak]

Accusing someone of being misinformed is smug.

Sir, that post you quoted was from TODAY. Yes, I have talked about immigration TODAY. I said I don't recall talking about it before TODAY.

Now, let's see what Mr. Christopher has talked about today:

"..the appeal of baseline racism and homophobia to the Republican party.."

Really, how is that going to change anyone's mind about anything? Is it even meant to? Or is it just virtue signaling?

I don't recall ever saying one word here about immigration. Or even about ILLEGAL immigration, which is what Bannon is talking about.

Nothing about TODAY in that post at all. Of course it all might make sense if you could explain why we should report Youtube videos that break the rules of their site but not Tweets that break the rules of twitter because they are made by Neo-Nazis.

[Trey Strain]

Nothing about TODAY in that post at all. Of course it all might make sense if you could explain why we should report Youtube videos that break the rules of their site but not Tweets that break the rules of twitter because they are made by Neo-Nazis.

I've lost my secret decoder ring, so I can't figure out what you're trying to say there. So I'm got to say goodbye to you and stop responding to you.