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

[Malvolio]

This post from people like that are always designed to make Bernie out to be some gods damned spoiler, and seekign to split the vote. And People eat that shit up, because some Rag that hates Progressives wrote it.
Then it gets blamed on Russians, then minorities not supporting blah blah blah.

Beto is not Presidential yet, and he lost, I wanted him to win, but he didn't. Yet somehow the Media is putting him up as the Presumptive? GTFOH!
Then when people start digging on Beto, We get called haters, by the Bernie haters, then everybody supposedly Liberal starts talking shit about each other again.

Question is... WHY on EARTH do some of you let the media pick your candidates, and people never research the candidates objectively?

There are legit and good records out there about Beto, and some are favorable and others not.

"Liberals" are funny animals.

The media are hot for Beto right now because he's telegenic. He looks good on television. If he looked like Ted Cruz, he wouldn't be getting half the attention he's getting. I mean, I agree with most of what he says, but let's be honest; the media care more about form than they care about substance.

[Malvolio]

It wasn't really stolen. You could argue that the most nefarious things maybe influenced voters but even on that there isn't enough data to prove it. Misinformation campaigns on social media have happened before. There were bs articles on facebook back in 2014. And it's kinda hard to have sympathy when alot of the hacked shit from the DNC and Clinton campiaign was 1. caused by user error and 2. was just true information coming out.

Also there's the two facts that

1. The biggest swing against Hillary came as a result of the Comey memo, which was not illegal. Maybe a break in protocol. But nothing you can reasonably take and stay "stolen"
2. The states Hillary lost were in an area she polled badly in anyways and rarely went to.

There's FAR more evidence those two factors hurt her campaign far more than anything Russia did. It just kinda comes off like people want to make themselves feel better.

Oh enough already! Neither Bernie nor Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee in 2020. However, they and we should support whoever is nominated, even if it isn't whom we voted for in the primaries.

[aja_christopher]

There's FAR more evidence those two factors hurt her campaign far more than anything Russia did. It just kinda comes off like people want to make themselves feel better.

Kinda like how you keep downplaying the fact that racism and sexism were really the main factors in Trump's victory since it doesn't fit your -- and Sanders' -- argument that "economic anxiety" was why many voters voted for Trump.

Leave the Hillary/Sanders nonsense in the past where it belongs and address the present, where enough of your fellow Americans are comfortable enough with racism and sexism to put an individual like Trump in the White House.

-----
"When blue-collar whites heard that implied message from Donald Trump, many realized it aligned with their own beliefs. As a result, they broke with precedent to support the Republican candidate for president.

That's the conclusion of a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the latest to analyze what drove Trump voters (aside from traditional party affiliation). Other recently published studies have pointed to the appeal of authoritarianism, or plain old racism and sexism.

University of Pennsylvania political scientist Diana Mutz reports a key group of voters — those who switched parties to vote for Trump — were motivated by the vision of a frightening fall in social status. In short, they feared they were in the process of losing their previously privileged positions.

This thesis is hardly new. In October of 2016 — one month before the election — we reported that reminding whites that America is on its way to becoming a minority-majority country increased whites' support for Trump. "Trump has successfully tapped into the threat to group status (felt by many white Americans)," that researcher team wrote...

https://psmag.com/news/research-find...e-trump-voters

[Tami]

Agreed. Both of them are already over 70 years old. Besides Hillary had her chance in 2016. Hillary's record was tarnished by Benghazi e-mails scandal. Anyone can realize if she can become an incompetent Secretary of State, she can become an incompetent POTUS.

What the democrats need is someone young but experienced and charismatic, someone who can appeal to voters and doesn't have a tarnished record.

Tell that to Bernie, he's still thinking of running. If he does and loses, he won't back anyone. Not without painful arm twisting.

[thwhtGuardian]

I've done my own research. And I haven't been able to find prominent Democrats suggesting any kind of restriction on legal immigration.

Thanks for the Sanders example. I missed it the first time, since it looked separate from the rest of your post. It is worth noting that his comments are mentioned as controversial within the Democratic party, and that he isn't officially a Democrat. He also remains vague on how many people he wants in the country legally each year.

Immigration (the umbrella term for border enforcement, legal immigration policies, and how we handle people here illegally) is definitely a major issue. We are dealing with 11,000,000 people who are here illegally, who would stand to benefit from some kind of amnesty. They have family.

There are also the people who want to come into the country. There are about 1,000,000 legal immigrants an year, with a total of 37,000,000. There are millions on various waiting lists. With a generous enough admissions policy, you could conservatively estimate that tens of millions of people in the world would like to be Americans if the barriers to entry were removed.

Some places are going to be more affected than others by the new additions. They're going to need all kinds of support (IE- language services for children in school) and handling the situation right will determine whether millions assimilate into the upward class or marginalized lower class groups.

It's also untrue that this is an issue that started with Trump. It's been an issue before that. Pew has polled Americans on the topic since 2001, and the number of people who want immigration decreased has gone from 53% to 24%, while the number of people who want immigration increased has gone from 10% to 32%. Meanwhile, the amount of people who want the number of legal immigrants to be the same has been consistent.

http://www.people-press.org/2018/06/...-into-the-u-s/

It's worth noting that only 40 percent of Democrats want immigration to increase. So this isn't even a majority position for the Democratic party.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...g-both-parties

If immigration hadn't been a controversial issue, there would have been more significant revisions to immigration policy under Bush or Obama.

It can be argued that this is an issue that most establishment politicians weren't willing to touch, although it becomes a problem when there isn't anyone running who matches the policy goals of a significant percentage of the voters.

I don't really follow conservative pundits. The idea that Democrats are essentially advocating for open borders has been coming from analysis from left-wing writers.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...istake/528678/

https://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/613590...iew-gdp-double

Disproving the idea that Democrats are pushing for open borders should be pretty easy: they should be open about the upper limit for admitted immigrants. But if they're vague about the existence of an upper limit, they're basically advocating for open borders. It does seem members of the Democratic party have decided to be vague on their actual views on legal immigration. I'm drawing the strongest negative inference from that.

It is easy: show me where they say they want open borders.

I'll save you the trouble, they don't.

And making a negative inference over the fact that they don't have a number for how many people should be let into the country isn't proof at all, and isn't "basically saying".
I mean, Trump hasn't denied that he's Satan and that his policies are meant to fragment mankind so as to bring about the end times. He's very vague about that...so it's fair to infer that he is Satan, right?
Too fictional? Okay, how about Republicans want totally closed borders because they haven't thrown out a number of how many people they are willing to let in?

[Kirby101]

Agreed. Both of them are already over 70 years old. Besides Hillary had her chance in 2016. Hillary's record was tarnished by Benghazi e-mails scandal. Anyone can realize if she can become an incompetent Secretary of State, she can become an incompetent POTUS.

Hogwash, both the emails and Benghazi were faux scandals promulgated by the GOP. She was a fantastic Sec of State. The vast Right Wing Conspiracy rears it's ugly head again. She was anything but incompetent. She had around 65% approval rating during her tenure. Then when she said she ran for Pres., the nonsense hearings started and went on and on, discovering nothing.
Stop with the emails and Bengahzi were actual scandals. They were a political ploy.

[numberthirty]

Kinda like how you keep downplaying the fact that racism and sexism were really the main factors in Trump's victory since it doesn't fit your -- and Sanders' -- argument that "economic anxiety" was why many voters voted for Trump.

Leave the Hillary/Sanders nonsense in the past where it belongs and address the present, where enough of your fellow Americans are comfortable enough with racism and sexism to put an individual like Trump in the White House.

-----
"When blue-collar whites heard that implied message from Donald Trump, many realized it aligned with their own beliefs. As a result, they broke with precedent to support the Republican candidate for president.

That's the conclusion of a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the latest to analyze what drove Trump voters (aside from traditional party affiliation). Other recently published studies have pointed to the appeal of authoritarianism, or plain old racism and sexism.

University of Pennsylvania political scientist Diana Mutz reports a key group of voters — those who switched parties to vote for Trump — were motivated by the vision of a frightening fall in social status. In short, they feared they were in the process of losing their previously privileged positions.

This thesis is hardly new. In October of 2016 — one month before the election — we reported that reminding whites that America is on its way to becoming a minority-majority country increased whites' support for Trump. "Trump has successfully tapped into the threat to group status (felt by many white Americans)," that researcher team wrote...

https://psmag.com/news/research-find...e-trump-voters

If someone who was pitching themselves as one of the most competent politicians in the history of "President" as an elected office in The United States did not factor sexism and racism in and campaign accordingly in the year 2016, there's really no excusing that they did not.

Which is before you downplay that HRC was going to be one of the worst candidates possible in a year where that the economic picture doesn't work for Joe/Jane Public was clearly an issue. Sanders would have been out two months in if it was not. If you are looking for folks that voted "For" Trump based on that, you are ignoring the obvious reality that some folks didn't vote "For" HRC based on that. The votes you didn't get are just as important as the votes your opponent did get.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Kinda like how you keep downplaying the fact that racism and sexism were really the main factors in Trump's victory since it doesn't fit your -- and Sanders' -- argument that "economic anxiety" was why many voters voted for Trump.

Leave the Hillary/Sanders nonsense in the past where it belongs and address the present, where enough of your fellow Americans are comfortable enough with racism and sexism to put an individual like Trump in the White House.

-----
"When blue-collar whites heard that implied message from Donald Trump, many realized it aligned with their own beliefs. As a result, they broke with precedent to support the Republican candidate for president.

That's the conclusion of a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the latest to analyze what drove Trump voters (aside from traditional party affiliation). Other recently published studies have pointed to the appeal of authoritarianism, or plain old racism and sexism.

University of Pennsylvania political scientist Diana Mutz reports a key group of voters — those who switched parties to vote for Trump — were motivated by the vision of a frightening fall in social status. In short, they feared they were in the process of losing their previously privileged positions.

This thesis is hardly new. In October of 2016 — one month before the election — we reported that reminding whites that America is on its way to becoming a minority-majority country increased whites' support for Trump. "Trump has successfully tapped into the threat to group status (felt by many white Americans)," that researcher team wrote...

https://psmag.com/news/research-find...e-trump-voters

Lol point too one instance where I said racism and sexism weren’t features of Trump’s campaign. You’re just making up arguments

[Tazirai]

This ignores how he kind of helped spoil 2016, of course. How conveniently we can forget.

How? I'll wait for an explanation. I and you disagree on Bernie. But It wasn't my Job as a voter to Coronate Hillary. So please how did he spoil anything? By having the audacity to just run? Or having the audacity to run a Progressive Platform that a majority of the country likes?
I'll wait for details. If anybody can give me details it's you, lol. That's kinda your thing.

[Tazirai]

Here's the question...

If a candidate had actually put real work into reaching out to the supporters of that candidate and tried to mend fences(not even getting into that unforced "Black Lives Matter" error), would they really need Sanders support to pull out a win?

If his support was that critical, it never once looked liked it in the general election campaign that was run.

Agreed. The Establishment simply thought she was OWED the win, without the work. Even forgetting how Hillary lacked the will to support Obama for months. But that's conveniently forgotten.

[Tazirai]

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/stat...17310245257217

Couponing while black.

But the Privileged keep telling me to act like an American, instead of a BLACK person, and all will be well. But when I do, all they see is black. I can be Black and American. I just want to live like everyone else and grow old and die, and never worry about fighting for my humanity ever again. I don't know what happened before I was born, or what comes next, but hopefully me just existing won't be an issue.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

How? I'll wait for an explanation. I and you disagree on Bernie. But It wasn't my Job as a voter to Coronate Hillary. So please how did he spoil anything? By having the audacity to just run? Or having the audacity to run a Progressive Platform that a majority of the country likes?
I'll wait for details. If anybody can give me details it's you, lol. That's kinda your thing.

The problem with the mindset that Bernie was a spoiler is that Hillary voters were a bigger spoiler for Obama only he was a good candidate so he won

[numberthirty]

Agreed. The Establishment simply thought she was OWED the win, without the work. Even forgetting how Hillary lacked the will to support Obama for months. But that's conveniently forgotten.

In addition to this...

HRC back then(or Bernie in 2016) was not some sort of a magic show hypnotist who could get folks to back the nominee no matter how they felt about them.

There was a reason that either one of them got the votes that the eventual nominee did not during the primary. If you are just going to hope that works out come the general?

That is an incredibly ill-advised move.

[Tazirai]

With all we know now about how 2016 being basically stolen, we're still Hillary bashing? I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

It's not Hillary Bashing. As a black male NOT influenced by Right Wing or Russian Propaganda like some folks on this board think, because I'm not a simpleton, like most blacks we know.
Pointing a candidates flaws isn't bashing. Whether it's her or Bernie or Manchin, I can bash Him on many things.

Why does this sound so familiar.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-votes/578302/

It was effective, as some people in this very thread have shown.

It may be to some. But this article basically claims we as blacks are morons...
Hillary lost because blacks are idiots is how it sounds...

I just think of her as the kind of centrist democrat/corporatist who doesn't really want change and will actively stifle any progressive agenda. any racial hang-ups she might have are incidental. I still voted for her (all the good that did).

I voted for her also, as did MOST black people I know. But any blacks who didn't vote for here most likely blacks from Suppresion and people with LONG memories of how shit the Clintons were to blacks in the 90's. Some people don't forget stuff like that.
It's like, "HEY! I'm gonna kick you guys , but when it's time to vote for me, just forget all that okay? Because it's just Right wing Propaganda, Left Wing White Privilege, and them Ruskies. OK?"

It wasn't really stolen. You could argue that the most nefarious things maybe influenced voters but even on that there isn't enough data to prove it. Misinformation campaigns on social media have happened before. There were bs articles on facebook back in 2014. And it's kinda hard to have sympathy when alot of the hacked shit from the DNC and Clinton campiaign was 1. caused by user error and 2. was just true information coming out.

Also there's the two facts that

1. The biggest swing against Hillary came as a result of the Comey memo, which was not illegal. Maybe a break in protocol. But nothing you can reasonably take and stay "stolen"
2. The states Hillary lost were in an area she polled badly in anyways and rarely went to.

There's FAR more evidence those two factors hurt her campaign far more than anything Russia did. It just kinda comes off like people want to make themselves feel better.

Yep.

I'd put voter suppression ahead of Russia for how things were stolen as well. In fact, that might be the most clear cut thing.

But if you put ANYTHING not related to Russia or Minorities and women being airheads, ahead of voter suppression you'd be wrong they'd say.

I posted a video of Claire McCaskill bitching abotu young voters not fighting for her, when she literally told them to shut up and fight for her. But I guess that'd be the Russians or Right Wing propaganda...

It's shit like this that drives me nuts from the people who want our votes.
Exiting Claire McCaskill is othering Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as ‘That New York Woman’

The media are hot for Beto right now because he's telegenic. He looks good on television. If he looked like Ted Cruz, he wouldn't be getting half the attention he's getting. I mean, I agree with most of what he says, but let's be honest; the media care more about form than they care about substance.

Agreed.

Oh enough already! Neither Bernie nor Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee in 2020. However, they and we should support whoever is nominated, even if it isn't whom we voted for in the primaries.

I agree. But during the primaries they better run a STRONG progressive. I'll hold my nose and vote, but I will NOT Campaign for a Beto O'Rourke type. I worked my ASS off for Bernie, because he excited me with his Policy ideas. I can't stomach milquetoast Liberals anymore. They can fuck right off, even if I'll vote for them over Dolt45. But I will not advocate for someone I disagree with on rate of Progress as a nation. This ain't the 50's through 80's. The world is hella different, and the Pragmastists need to grow a spine.

[InformationGeek]

Give it up to Trump, always finding new ways to be a dick.

Donald Trump, answering phone call from 7-year-old on Christmas Eve: "Are you still a believer in Santa? Because at seven it's marginal, right?"