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

[zinderel]

If you're focused on an issue that injures/ kills a relatively small number of people, that means there will be less resources available to deal with issues that kill a larger number of people/ prevent them from reaching their full potential. The trade-off is irresponsible.

Good to know that human suffering is just a thought experiment, for you, and that the reality of ACTUAL, documented right wing terrorism - against minorities your party demonizes at every opportunity, against the government your party proclaims it's hatred of, against the media your party insists is the enemy of the people EVEN AFTER THEY ARE TARGETED BY A BOMBER - is less important than some theoretical possibility of violence against...someone...somewhere...maybe...

Meanwhile, for those of us who have been targeted by right wing violence, those of us who have lived most of our lives under right wing callousness and disregard, those of us who have been dehumanized by right wing 'christians' and demeaned by right wing media outlets and degraded by right wing politicians and threatened by right wing voters and killed by right wing thugs...we take such terrorism personally. The way terrorism is MEANT TO BE TAKEN by it's targets. Our assailants, our victimizers, our haters all espouse the modern right wing ideals of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or some ungodly confluence of several of those and we don't have the luxury (dare I say...'priviledge') of viewing terrorism as anything but serious.

If it turns out that these bombs are some 'false flag' thing, well...then fuck the so-called leftist who thought it was a good idea, and I hope he suffers before he dies. But, hey! Since you love thought experiments and viewing your fellow man in the abstract instead of in their own words, what happens if/when it turns out to be a Trump voter doing this? Do you FINALLY admit your party has become a party of corrupt monstrosity at it's core, or do you make excuses for it again?

I can guess, given your track record, but...

[zinderel]

Illinois gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner (a Republican, of course) ran this delightful little smear ad against his opponent, JB Pritzker.



But, you know...Republicans aren't about spreading hate or lies to win power, or anything...

[aja_christopher]

But, you know...Republicans aren't about spreading hate or lies to win power, or anything...

[zinderel]

Heh...'Ice-Is'...

It feels like no amount of evidence matters. The words and actions of the party leadership and it's most vocal boosters get blown off as 'fake news'. The worst elements of the party base take the hate and lies to heart, human lives suffer, and the 'good' Republican supporters who 'don't buy into the anti-right-wing narrative' treat it like a hypothetical thought experiment instead of cold, hard reality in desperate need of addressing...

[numberthirty]

Illinois gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner (a Republican, of course) ran this delightful little smear ad against his opponent, JB Pritzker.



But, you know...Republicans aren't about spreading hate or lies to win power, or anything...

Honestly, that's not much of a shock.

Ignore "Republican Vs. Democratic" politics.

Rauner knows good and well that he has almost no path to a victory based on his performance as Governor during his first term. He's going to throw everything that isn't actually nailed down before election day.

[zinderel]

Honestly, that's not much of a shock.

Ignore "Republican Vs. Democratic" politics.

Rauner knows good and well that he has almost no path to a victory based on his performance as Governor during his first term. He's going to throw everything that isn't actually nailed down before election day.

It's increasingly hard to 'ignore "Republican Vs. Democratic" politics' when it is ONE PARTY who runs this kind of ad, ONE party who treats minorities like a punchline and a threat at the same time.

It's like trying to separate the reality that paying to see Tom Cruise movies puts money in the pocket of the homophobic torture cult that he calls 'the only force for good in the world'. I dunno...I don't think it's possible for a person of conscience to separate what a person says and does from the things he is most associated with.

[numberthirty]

It's increasingly hard to 'ignore "Republican Vs. Democratic" politics' when it is ONE PARTY who runs this kind of ad, ONE party who treats minorities like a punchline and a threat at the same time.

It's like trying to separate the reality that paying to see Tom Cruise movies puts money in the pocket of his homophobic torture cult. I dunno...I don't think it's possible for a person of conscience to separate what a person says and does with the things he is most associated with.

In this particular instance, it really has nothing to do with it.

Illinois Republicans did what they could to run someone else. Rauner just barely made it through the primary.

While I'm not saying there is nothing to what I believe your point is, it's just got nothing to do with this particular race. The guy has openly gone against what "A Republican" would do during his first term.

This is strictly the action of a desperate man.

[zinderel]

In this particular instance, it really has nothing to do with it.

Illinois Republicans did what they could to run someone else. Rauner just barely made it through the primary.

While I'm not saying there is nothing to what I believe your point is, it's just got nothing to do with this particular race. The guy has openly gone against what "A Republican" would do during his first term.

This is strictly the action of a desperate man.

Maybe I'm just not getting it. Are you saying that preying on bigotry and playing the victim aren't core tactics of the Republican party...?

The man is a Republican. The Republican party is well known for both their use of bigotry and fear to drum up votes and their use of a victim narrative to paint opposing thought as evil. This ad features both tactics in service to a Republican candidate. Just because he is desperate and extreme in his presentation doesn't make that all go away. How are we supposed to separate the one from the other...?

[numberthirty]

Maybe I'm just not getting it. Are you saying that preying on bigotry and playing the victim aren't core tactics of the Republican party...?

The man is a Republican. The Republican party is well known for both their use of bigotry and fear to drum up votes and their use of a victim narrative to paint opposing thought as evil. This ad features both tactics in service to a Republican candidate. Just because he is desperate and extreme in his presentation doesn't make that all go away. How are we supposed to separate the one from the other...?

For starters...

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...07-column.html

Bruce Rauner was courageous — and right — when he signed the Illinois abortion bill

In signing the controversial bill Thursday expanding taxpayer-subsidized abortions for low-income women, the moderate Republican governor angered conservatives across the state —all the way up to Cardinal Blase Cupich.

But in refusing to veto the bill as he had promised, Rauner also did something else. He showed us what could happen when a politician refuses to allow politics to dictate his decisions. That's something we don't often see in Springfield — or Washington, for that matter.

Rauner deserves our respect for that.

Under the new law, low-income women will receive expanded Medicaid coverage for abortions. Coverage is no longer limited to abortions that are the result of rape, incest or threats to the mother's health or life. It also applies to women covered through state employee insurance.

Not really as simple as a "Well Known For..." sort of a narrative.

Never mind that the party tried it's best to take the guy out of play.

This guy is running a strictly "Save My Own Bacon..." playbook. Any overlap with anything else is strictly coincidental.

[zinderel]

For starters...

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...07-column.html





Not really as simple as a "Well Known For..." sort of a narrative.

Never mind that the party tried it's best to take the guy out of play.

This guy is running a strictly "Save My Own Bacon..." playbook. Any overlap with anything else is strictly coincidental.

Ok, cool, so he once did a compassionate, ethical thing, against the wishes of his party, his voters, and the religion that controls them both.

So, what I get out of this is "Bruce Rauner wasn't as extreme as his voters and party wanted, regarding abortion. Because of that one 'mistake', they turned on him and "tried [their] best to take the guy out of play." Now that he's, as you say, desperate, he pivots and uses the extreme tactics his party prefers, in a final bid to retain control of his seat of power.

Still finding it hard to separate the man's party affiliation from this ad.

[numberthirty]

Ok, cool, so he once did a compassionate, ethical thing, against the wishes of his party, his voters, and the religion that controls them both.

So, what I get out of this is "Bruce Rauner wasn't as extreme as his voters and party wanted, regarding abortion. Because of that one 'mistake', they turned on him and "tried [their] best to take the guy out of play." Now that he's, as you say, desperate, he pivots and uses the extreme tactics his party prefers, in a final bid to retain control of his seat of power.

Still finding it hard to separate the man's party affiliation from this ad.

It's really not.

Whatever tactic would produce the desired result is what he would use. Every step this guy takes reflects that reality. What you have decided is "Ethical" is just what was best for him. Nothing more than that.

Trying to create a case for that it is anything except that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[zinderel]

It's really not.

Whatever tactic would produce the desired result is what he would use. Every step this guy takes reflects that reality. What you have decided is "Ethical" is just what was best for him. Nothing more than that.

Trying to create a case for that it is anything except that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Whether or not his reasons for supporting the abortion bill were ethical doesn't change that supporting low income women's right to bodily autonomy and choice IS ethical. He made a decision, for whatever reason, that was ethical, and his party - the party known for their lack of ethics in using tactics of hatred and division based on skin color, sexuality, gender, religion, etc - turned on him. This led to him tacking HARD to the extreme right to appease his party base, in desperation. Like many Republican pols before him, and many who will come after. He got caught showing a modicum of humanity, got blasted for it, and went hard the other way. It's pretty par for the course.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Whether or not his reasons for supporting the abortion bill were ethical doesn't change that supporting low income women's right to bodily autonomy and choice IS ethical. He made a decision, for whatever reason, that was ethical, and his party - the party known for their lack of ethics in using tactics of hatred and division based on skin color, sexuality, gender, religion, etc - turned on him. This led to him tacking HARD to the extreme right to appease his party base, in desperation. Like many Republican pols before him, and many who will come after. He got caught showing a modicum of humanity, got blasted for it, and went hard the other way. It's pretty par for the course.

Makes you wonder why Republicans like Rauner even bother being decent when it’s a whole lot easier to be a shitstain.

[Mister Mets]

That moment when a forum moderator starts making excuses for domestic terrorism.

Also, you understand the point of terrorism is that you don't have to kill millions of people, the point is the terrorists kill or threaten a few to... y'know, spread terror?

Where's the bottom on this line of thinking for you, Mets?

I have made no excuse for domestic terrorism.

I also understand the point of terrorism, including the fact that exaggerating the impact can give the terrorists what they want.

Say that to the victims who have to struggle with the pain, grief and anger from losing loved ones to madmen. Whether one person is killed or one hundred, it's still totally unacceptable. Plain and simple, there is no tradeoff.

The more you espouse views as repugnant as those, the more respect for you I lose.

How can we tell the grieving survivors of people killed in car accidents that we will allow their loved ones to have died in vain, and refuse to have a national speed limit of 10 MPH?

As for the responses to domestic terrorism, this isn't a matter of the authorities doing nothing. Heather Heyer's killer is prosecuted for first-degree murder and a lot of other crimes. The man who shot up the bible study group in South Carolina hoping to start a race war was sentenced to death. The authorities are going after the guy sending the explosives, just as they're going after whoever sent Susan Collins the Ricin threat.

What more should be done?

It's funny how we are expected to devote billions of dollars to fight "radical Islamic" terrorism when fewer Muslims have killed Americans than radical right-wing terrorists yet the Republican Party is unwilling to devote any resources to it because it would be "irresponsible". I don't know if Mets thinks that we should be devoting as many resources to the War on Terror or what have you but it seems to be an issue of consistency to claim that one is worth addressing while the other is not.

I'm frankly stunned by how often smart people I know, that identify as Republicans, can allow for this cognitive dissonance.

In my lifetime, there have been more Americans killed by radical Muslims than by right-wing terrorists.

That said, I do think we've gone overboard with some anti-terrorism measures post-9/11. And that there has been significant waste in the war on terror. Does anyone here disagree with either assertion.

I've never claimed that we shouldn't devote any resources to catching/ preventing right-wing terrorists. We should probably take it more seriously than the typical murders and attempted murders. But this is a question of how much resources/ focus this topic deserves.

Good to know that human suffering is just a thought experiment, for you, and that the reality of ACTUAL, documented right wing terrorism - against minorities your party demonizes at every opportunity, against the government your party proclaims it's hatred of, against the media your party insists is the enemy of the people EVEN AFTER THEY ARE TARGETED BY A BOMBER - is less important than some theoretical possibility of violence against...someone...somewhere...maybe...

Meanwhile, for those of us who have been targeted by right wing violence, those of us who have lived most of our lives under right wing callousness and disregard, those of us who have been dehumanized by right wing 'christians' and demeaned by right wing media outlets and degraded by right wing politicians and threatened by right wing voters and killed by right wing thugs...we take such terrorism personally. The way terrorism is MEANT TO BE TAKEN by it's targets. Our assailants, our victimizers, our haters all espouse the modern right wing ideals of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or some ungodly confluence of several of those and we don't have the luxury (dare I say...'priviledge') of viewing terrorism as anything but serious.

If it turns out that these bombs are some 'false flag' thing, well...then fuck the so-called leftist who thought it was a good idea, and I hope he suffers before he dies. But, hey! Since you love thought experiments and viewing your fellow man in the abstract instead of in their own words, what happens if/when it turns out to be a Trump voter doing this? Do you FINALLY admit your party has become a party of corrupt monstrosity at it's core, or do you make excuses for it again?

I can guess, given your track record, but...

I wasn't limiting my observation on wasted resources to violence, since there are many other things that kill people and prevent them from reaching their potential.

You're conflating terrorism with other problems. Callousness and disregard from right-wing politicians, and demonization from right wing media outlets are a different problem than some idiot mailing pipe bombs to former officials, so the solution to the latter wouldn't fix the former.

If it turns out that the terrorist is a Trump voter, I expect he'll be prosecuted. What do you think the result should be?

[zinderel]

Makes you wonder why Republicans like Rauner even bother being decent when it’s a whole lot easier to be a shitstain.

Right? I mean, I absolutely know that there are good, decent people who vote Republican for one reason or another (usually, lack of information not filtered through Fox News or their pastors...) as well as good, decent people in positions of leadership. But I ALSO know that when they show themselves to be decent, the core of the party - the ignorant, hateful zealots who want racial purity and a Christian America - FREAKS THEVFUCK OUT and demands their heads.

I ALSO know, as a 40 year old gay man, that this attack ad is EXACTLY what I expect from a Republican, since it follows a script laid out over the course of the las several decades. If this ad came out during the Prop 8 runup - or any of the other 'illegalize and criminalize the gays' bills - I would roll my eyes and move on. That it is being run today, targeting a vulnerable minority in a state not well known for it's tolerance and acceptance of gay people, does not surprise me, but it DOES anger me as just one more way the party in power demonizes me for profit and power.