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

[Tendrin]

Democrats lose because unlike Republicans their too busy killing each over other purity. Republicans just focus on specific things and move forward as evidenced in this very thread. The focus should be on removing trump and resetting the status quo, not on a battle between who's progressive enough.

Something something 'corporate dems' something something.

[Tofali]

Something something 'corporate dems' something something.

Lol! Claire M. is really giving the word purity a new life.

[worstblogever]

What I "remember" is that wartime Presidents historically don't lose re-election campaigns and that no one ever realistically thought Bush couldn't be re-elected, which is exactly why one of my main concerns is that Trump might start a war abroad (Iran and/or North Korea) just to distract from his domestic problems here at home.

His choice of John Bolton (Bush's advisor) wasn't an accident -- the blueprint is already there.

-----
"John Bolton: Bush-era war hawk makes comeback"

"Mr Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, does not appear to have modified his views since his last spell in government. As he briefly weighed his own run for the US presidency in 2016, he maintained the American-led invasion of Iraq had been "correct". He also called in a New York Times op-ed for Iran to be bombed, and pilloried President Obama's nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic as a "diplomatic Waterloo".

In his memoir, Surrender is Not an Option, Mr Bolton railed against the "deadening Brussels bureaucracies" of the European Union.

And in a recent op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, he set out the case for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea.

His new role at the commander-in-chief's ear may perplex those who voted for Mr Trump because of his vow to avoid US military adventures overseas."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37989338

-----
"Why Bush Won"

"Though the result of the 2004 election may be very similar to that of the 2000 election, this does not mean that the 2004 election was merely a repeat of what occurred four years ago. Using the issues of the economy and Iraq, candidate Kerry was indeed able to make inroads among many voters. However, the Bush strategy of focusing on terrorism [i.e. "The War on Terror"] and moral values was effective in picking up additional support to help offset gains made by Kerry.

As a result, Mr. Bush managed to stay competitive and succeed in his quest for reelection to the presidency."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-bush-won-02-11-2004/

Bush and Republicans had control of the House, even if Democrats didn't want to go along with the Iraq War vote. Even though that war was unjustified, it was going to get the votes. They also had the backing of an international coalition based on good faith after 9-11. He squandered that good faith, at home and abroad, as a result. His target of "regime change" was Saddam Hussein.

Trump needs an adversary akin to Hussein. He's a moron, and has palled around with the sort of dictators he would need to overthrow. He flips on Kim Jong Un from time to time, but he's still a moron and doesn't understand alliances that would prevent him from going to war there, and wants to just nuke them off the planet. Nobody's voting for that. Especially not in a Democratic-controlled House. Should he decide to go to war anywhere on bulls*** justifications as Bush did, he's going to get hamstrung by his own Congress, and then he'll be ignoring the Constitution. (AGAIN.)

So I wouldn't worry about it.

[worstblogever]

We can talk about other things than Bernie, because If I'm fanatical then so are you. We'll be "fanatical" together and agree to never speak on Bernie again between us.
Also, to agree to disagree, because I'm not your enemy, so please don't make me one.

I'll talk about Bernie as much as I feel like, thanks. You should perhaps consider not engaging everyone who mentions him with less than fawning praise, if it bothers you to hear it so much, use your "ignore" option on anyone who can't keep up to your standards of Bernie worship.

As far as the "enemy" part, come on, man, save the posturing, and try and not be so melodramatic.

[Iron Maiden]

in other news..... I don't know about the rest of you but I really missed having Toys R Us around at Christmas time. When I need a present for a birthday or Christmas I still like going to a store that has a lot of Lego sets on the shelf ready to take home. I like seeing what the toy looks like in person before I buy it. Many times this is because I end up being a last minute shopper.

Recently, Toys R Us won the approval to sell their majority stake in Toys R U Asia where there are more than 450 stores in 10 markets. Next year China will add around 50 stores Too bad no one here in the US has put together a plan to revive Toys R Us in the U.S., even though there was some interest

Many analysts laid the blame on private equity firms Bain Capital and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts for loading the company with debt that crippled Toys R US' when they bought the company in 2005.

Saddled with its new debt, however, Toys “R” Us had less flexibility to innovate. By 2007, according to Bloomberg, interest expense consumed 97 percent of the company’s operating profit. It had few resources left to upgrade its stores in order to compete with Target, or to spiff up its website in order to contend with Amazon.

They didn't treat the staff very well either....

Ann marie reinhart was one of the first people to learn that Toys “R” Us was shuttering her store. She was supervising the closing shift at the Babies “R” Us in Durham, North Carolina, when her manager gave her the news. “I was almost speechless,” she told me recently. Twenty-nine years ago, Reinhart was a new mother buying diapers in a Toys “R” Us when she saw a now hiring sign. She applied and was offered a job on the spot. She eventually became a human-resources manager and then a store supervisor.

She stayed because the company treated her well, accommodating her schedule. She got good benefits: health insurance, a 401(k). But she noticed a difference after the private-equity firms Bain Capital and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, along with the real-estate firm Vornado Realty Trust, took over Toys “R” Us in 2005. “It changed the dynamic of how the store ran,” she said. The company eliminated positions, loading responsibilities onto other workers. Schedules became unpredictable. Employees had to pay more for fewer benefits, Reinhart recalled. (Bain and KKR declined to comment; Vornado did not respond to requests for comment.)

Oh, and a big stakeholder in Bain Capital is Mitt Romney.

One wonders if the company is doing well in Asia if there is still a chance for a return for Toys R US. They must be doing something right over there that this country needs to look into.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2014, 2015, 2016, as well as 2017, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day posted profiles of Bob Marshall, a particularly homophobic and misogynistic member of the Virginia State Assembly who made a bid for Congress in 2016 to serve Virginia’s 1st District, only to lose in the GOP Primary to Barbara Comstock. How homophobic, though? He literally described himself as “Virginia’s chief homophobe”. As conservative as Barbara Comstock is, Bob Marshall is far, far worse. Among the uglier Marshall moments in regards to the LGBT community brought to the fore were the fact that he co-wrote Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage, how he worried that the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would lead to gays bringing more STDs into the military population, and when he saw an LGBT flag flying on state property and tried claiming it was a class six felony. Heck, after some Supreme Court rulings where Justice Anthony Kennedy ruled in favor of gay rights, Marshall publicly commented that he thought it was because Kennedy was secretly gay, too. As far as women’s issues go, he once tried to pass a Personhood bill that would have outlawed many forms of birth control in Virginia, and the time during a debate in 2011 about funding Planned Parenthood that he claimed there was a spike in birth defects and it was because God was angry about abortion. Just to name a couple. Rounding out this summary of that profile, we’ll mention the time Bob Marshall was asked about the Affordable Care Act, and he said it was “forcible economic rape” and in 2016 when he compared his passion to nullify federal gun laws to those who fought to keep the Fugitive Slave Act in place. We are happy to say that as you may have heard, Bob Marshall was booted from office by Danica Roem, who beat him with 54% of the vote in Virgina’s 2017 elections. The story gets even sweeter. You see, Bob Marshall being a huuuuuge homophobe and transphobe who supported transgender bathroom bans and not common sense legislation that might actually help his constituents was what inspired Roem, a transgendered woman and heavy metal singer, to become a candidate for political office, and take him on in 2017. Marshall could not help himself, refusing to debate Roem in person, taking all sorts of potshots at her lifestyle and gender identity, and even had the Virginia GOP send out campaign fliers that deliberately misgendered her. It seems that will be the end of his disgraceful career, and so we’ll take a look at a different wacky Republican today instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard is now 715-30, since this was established in July 2014.)


Dennis Hof

Welcome to the 715th original “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” profile, where we’ll be talking about Dennis Hof, the winner of the race for the seat to represent District 36 Nevada’s State Assembly. That’s a remarkable upset for several reasons. The first was… Dennis Hof is a pimp. That’s not a euphemism for anything… he is a literal 72-year old pimp, and is part owner of the Bunny Ranch in Nevada as well as several other brothels. This was hardly a secret to the public, what with Hof featuring his businesses on an HBO reality show called “Cat House” in the years prior, where he coached whores in their craft. Adding to the circus-like spectacle of a man employing sex workers winning a GOP Primary was the fact that he had convicted felon and madam Heidi Fleiss attend his victory party. And while some Nevada Republicans distanced themselves from Hof… guess what? HE GOT THE EVANGELICAL WING’S SUPPORT (Merry Christmas, from full-of-s*** conservative Christians everyone!). This in spite of Dennis Hof being, again, a pimp. And not just any pimp, a pimp whose former workers accused him of making unwanted sexual contact with them, and who frequently tried to get a mother and daughter both in his employ to engage in incestuous sex acts.

Sorry, did we say that Dennis Hof is a pimp? We meant WAS. Because while he may have won the election on November 6th, he didn’t live to see that happen, as he died on October 16th, 2018, where people like CSGOPOTD alumni Joe Arpaio and porn star Ron Jeremy were reveling with prostitutes (your party of family values at its finest).

We’ll never get to know what kind of legislator Dennis Hof would have been, and we’re quite alright with that. We will, however, remember this story to point out how full of s*** the GOP is regarding their moral center, and their supposed regard for women.

[Tazirai]

And Bernie still lost to Hillary by a very large margin -- yet here you are promoting him at every available opportunity.

No one here is telling you to "bow your heads" -- just that cult-like fanaticism towards one candidate who isn't even a Democrat and already lost against Hillary herself isn't an effective way to convince other Democrats (or moderates or Republicans) that said candidate is the right choice going into the next election cycle.

It's certainly your right as an American voter, but it will most likely be just as effective as the last time he ran.

Bernie took 46% of the Democratic vote.. but whatever.
WHo do YOU think will have the best chance against Trump?

I'm pretty sure I said I'll support the nominee yes? But who is this amazing Populist that's a DEMOCRAT that you have?
Who gives a **** about him being a Democrat when actual Democrats like manchin, heitkamp, donnelly, mccaskill and such exist. They are Democrats who acually haven't been very helpful to the party, or are you personally blinded by loyalty to theparty instead of the platform?

I shill for Bernie because he's more Democrat than most Democrats. Outside of Obama, show me a politician who has his support base, OBVIOUSLY not from you guys. But who is the person that excites you?
I'm not goign ot go into the rigging of elections in 2016, but whatevs.
You guys slam me, but never offer actual policy solutions. So what is it?

As for the "bow your head comment". Most of the people in this very thread, criticize anyone who doesn't support their candidte or the lesser of two evils, because THEY chose to do so.
You say it's okay what others who aren't you to make our choices, but it's bad unless we agree with you.

How exactly does that work? We make our choice just as you made yours, but if the outcome isn't to YOUR liking it's our fault? Even though we supported your person in the end?

[Tazirai]

*facepalms*

/holds head in hands and shakes it side to side.

[aja_christopher]

Bernie took 46% of the Democratic vote...

Whatever he "took" he still lost, so it's hypocritical to call Hillary out for being a "loser" when Bernie lost to Hillary by a substantial margin, especially given all the nonsense -- both legal and illegal -- that she had to contend with both before and during the election cycle.

Nearly everything both "left" and "right" was aligned at defeating her campaign, and it worked... so here we are.

Regarding the candidates, I don't "think" anything at this point -- I'm going to listen to what each one has to say first and then vote accordingly.

[Tazirai]

Democrats lose because unlike Republicans their too busy killing each over other purity. Republicans just focus on specific things and move forward as evidenced in this very thread. The focus should be on removing trump and resetting the status quo, not on a battle between who's progressive enough.

Me, I'm personally done being "pure" or "accepting" of what the "Corporate" side of the party wants in favor of unity. They love unity, as long as you unify with what they want. The goal is to remove Trump. We're going to fight it out over the next two years regardless. Democrats can unite eventually, but there's a war within the party from all sides, and we'll need a middle ground. Right now, most progressives are sick of other "PROGRESSIVES" telling us that the most popular policies in the nation are somehow pie in the sky, but we can negotiate a 5 billion for a wall?

Something something 'corporate dems' something.

Something something "Purity" something something.

Lol! Claire M. is really giving the word purity a new life.

Amazing how she refuses to accept anything progressive, but thinks progressives should LITERALLY shut up and bow their heads and fight for her, as she promises not to fight for us.
I've posted the videos on this thread for several pages, and Guarantee the people who say, "We're not telling you to bow your heads." Didn't even listen to the words coming out of her mouth.
But I'm a fanatic for purity? Lol.

I'll talk about Bernie as much as I feel like, thanks. You should perhaps consider not engaging everyone who mentions him with less than fawning praise, if it bothers you to hear it so much, use your "ignore" option on anyone who can't keep up to your standards of Bernie worship.

As far as the "enemy" part, come on, man, save the posturing, and try and not be so melodramatic.

I never said you couldn't did I? I said me and you should not discuss it since in your wisdom, I'm a fanatic. You're right I won't engage, as obviously those people aren't as fanatical as I am with my FAWNING praise. Lol.
No it doesn't bother me. Just you and your praise of everything democrats do, and never objectively analyzing the party as you do the GOP. Who are terrible. Why is that?

Ignore is for trolls, not people having a, I guess "Civilized" disagreement. I'd love to see you objectively analyze the awesomeness that is the Democratic party. Because obviously they do nothing wrong. /eyeroll.
I obviously triggered you enough to think I'm fanatical, so I defended myself, /shrug. But anyway, the thread will continue on. Until I say something again and trigger people and they comment about "Purity", and "corporate" something something, while not being critical of the party, instead of the candidates the party selects and the policy.

Have at it folks.

[Tazirai]

Whatever he "took" he still lost, so it's hypocritical to call Hillary out for being a "loser" when Bernie lost to Hillary by a substantial margin, especially given all the nonsense -- both legal and illegal -- that she had to contend with both before and during the election cycle.

Nearly everything both "left" and "right" was aligned at defeating her campaign, and it worked... so here we are.

Regarding the candidates, I don't "think" anything at this point -- I'm going to listen to what each one has to say first and then vote accordingly.

That's how elections work.
Each side is trying to defeat the other...
Ok, here's the thing I'll shut up about the Democratic party if they consistently prove they are working on our behalf. Which as of late, they keep punching me in the face, and asking for my vote and my silence about party politics...
Hillary can go waddle in the woods. She should have nothing else to do with the party, a her way has lost several times now. But she's acceptable and the old white guy from Vermont isn't? Got it.


BTW: Outside of the BS.
Happy Holidays!

[aja_christopher]

No it doesn't bother me. Just you and your praise of everything democrats do, and never objectively analyzing the party as you do the GOP. Who are terrible. Why is that?.

Exaggerations like this are a large part of the problem -- I think most posters here recognize that the Democratic party is by no means perfect, but they are much better than the alternative.

Conversely, Sanders is by no means perfect either, but one wouldn't know it by looking at the vast majority of your posts.

Hillary herself mounted one of the first pushes for universal health care yet you claim that her party is the one punching you in the face -- I'd argue that constantly criticizing someone whose ultimate goal is universal health care is punching your own self in the face.

That's how elections work.
Each side is trying to defeat the other...

Agreed -- and now would be a good time to choose a "side" -- for or against Trump -- and deal with all of the other issues once that is done.

This kind of infighting is exactly what defeated a lot of the "progressive" agenda under both the Clinton and Obama administrations -- learn from those past mistakes and move forward because we can't afford to have this kind of thing keep happening to our country every other election cycle.

[jetengine]

"We're done listening to corporate mainstream democrats, vote progressive!"

*later*

"Why did Trump win again ? Its not because we split the vote right ?"

Literally the same lunacy as the Corbynites telling me Brexit is "A middle class obsession" and "It wont harm the working class"

[numberthirty]

Exaggerations like this are a large part of the problem -- I think most posters here recognize that the Democratic party is by no means perfect, but they are much better than the alternative.

Conversely, Sanders is by no means perfect either, but one wouldn't know it by looking at the vast majority of your posts.

Hillary herself mounted one of the first pushes for universal health care yet you claim that her party is the one punching you in the face -- I'd argue that constantly criticizing someone whose ultimate goal is universal health care is punching your own self in the face.



Agreed -- and now would be a good time to choose a "side" -- for or against Trump -- and deal with all of the other issues once that is done.

This kind of infighting is exactly what defeated a lot of the "progressive" agenda under both the Clinton and Obama administrations -- learn from those past mistakes and move forward because we can't afford to have this kind of thing keep happening to our country every other election cycle.

Man...

Bill Clinton was still out there in front of Black Lives Matter trying to justify/excuse a lot of the garbage he did while in office just over two years ago. Never mind that bit he pulled when was asked about a personal apology to Monica Lewinsky.

Trying to say "Neither One Of Them Is Perfect..." just comes of as seriously tone deaf when I didn't see Sanders doing the same.

Is the guy perfect? Obviously not.

That said, he certainly isn't on some of the garbage that some mainstream Democrats are. They just had to eighty-six some of them on sexual misconduct in Congress(let's just set aside that Pelosi tried to change the subject for one of them until it was obvious that doing so was a serious liability). There is a difference.

[numberthirty]

That's how elections work.
Each side is trying to defeat the other...
Ok, here's the thing I'll shut up about the Democratic party if they consistently prove they are working on our behalf. Which as of late, they keep punching me in the face, and asking for my vote and my silence about party politics...
Hillary can go waddle in the woods. She should have nothing else to do with the party, a her way has lost several times now. But she's acceptable and the old white guy from Vermont isn't? Got it.


BTW: Outside of the BS.
Happy Holidays!

Ditto.

..........