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

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Ideally the number of people who settle wil be as small as possible. The best candidate will have the widest appeal and broadest support. Only time will tell if there one who can do that.

Someone will be settling. There's no perfect Democrat. There's a lot of Democrats that just don't give a single **** about anything but social equality issues. Then there's Democrats that don't give a **** about anything but the economic policies. Then there's some that just want a Republican for the economy but a democrat socially. Then there's the inverse. Then there's a lot that only care about the environment. Then there's plenty that are all over the place from hawkish to pacifists when it comes to foreign policy.


With Republicans you are getting someone who wants lower taxes, deregulation, and doesn't really want any change socially. You are guaranteed to get something like that on the right no matter who comes out. It's a matter of degrees. Socially you could have a pence who wants to roll us back to the ice age. Fiscally you could have a psycho who wants to let billionaires run wild and wreck havoc on the economy. But you are generally going to get someone in that range.

Someone's going to have to take some sort of back seat on their pet issues on the Democrat side. With Hillary she got killed by an economic populist sentiment, even though she made great strides in selling herself and rebranding herself as someone who would push for more on social issues (which is where she faultered in 08). You can't predict what will be the driving issue either. In 2008 Democrats got a massive break with the economy tanking right before the election and nobody wanting to trust Republicans with it at that time. It changed the whole dynamic of the election. Republicans were convinced running a strong military guy like McCain while in the middle of two wars was the smart call. And it probably would have helped a lot. But then once the economy hit that mattered so much less.

The thing that scares me the most is that the Democrats have had a really bad habit of trying to make everything about Trump, and I can see that messaging not being very compelling. We already saw a campaign that turned into "look how bad Trump is" fail.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Not all "Bernie Bros" are the same -- most rational people understand that.

But enough are problematic to the point where it's not a bad thing to point out said "problems" so the "left" can deal with them and unify going forward.

The sexual harassment issue for example doesn't mean that all Sanders supporters are sexist, but it does indicate that there is a problem within said "group" that needs to be addressed directly, and to his credit Sanders recognizes this as well.

Whenever you have a large group you will have problematic people involved. I could say the same thing about his opponents campaign because of who she was married too, which was quite problematic as well. The thing is, neither of them were directly advocating for bad behavior. It's just going to happen when you get enough people involved.

But my overall point is that the "Bernie Bro" mantra was mostly about this concept that it was a bunch of white guys who were rallying against the inevitable female and picking a man to support. It was framed as a sexist movement. It ignored the millions of female Bernie supporters. It ignores that the Bernie supporters were and continued to be very accepting of other female politicians. It was just a cheap attack to shame a large group of people under the umbrella of "well you're really just a sexist who's throwing a tantum over a woman". Which couldn't have been further from the truth.

[aja_christopher]

Whenever you have a large group you will have problematic people involved. I could say the same thing about his opponents campaign because of who she was married too, which was quite problematic as well. The thing is, neither of them were directly advocating for bad behavior. It's just going to happen when you get enough people involved.

But my overall point is that the "Bernie Bro" mantra was mostly about this concept that it was a bunch of white guys who were rallying against the inevitable female and picking a man to support. It was framed as a sexist movement. It ignored the millions of female Bernie supporters. It ignores that the Bernie supporters were and continued to be very accepting of other female politicians. It was just a cheap attack to shame a large group of people under the umbrella of "well you're really just a sexist who's throwing a tantum over a woman". Which couldn't have been further from the truth.

Meanwhile, the Hillary campaign was "framed" as a "corporate" venture whose candidate (allegedly) ran on her gender alone, and both candidates "lost" as a result; the lesson being that continually pointing fingers at one another over said labels -- whether real or imagined -- only leads to failure in the long run, especially when running against a dogmatically united Republican party.

Whether people on the "left" choose to learn that lesson or continue fighting with one another all the way to another Trump victory remains to be seen.

[KOSLOX]

Remember the sexist Bernie Bros attack. Kinda weird how all those "bros" are down with Warren and AOC

I remember the ones that said minority voters weren't smart enough to vote for their own interests or dismissed their concerns as distractions and unimportant issues.

[aja_christopher]

I remember the ones that said minority voters weren't smart enough to vote for their own interests or dismissed their concerns as distractions and unimportant issues.

Something that happened to me repeatedly during said campaign, especially on the Salon forum.

Clinton supporters tended to be more open-minded and even-handed -- Sanders supporters seemed to think he was entitled to my vote, regardless of my own personal views or insights: I can say that without bias since I made it clear that I was willing to vote for either candidate against Trump, regardless.

That's not an attack on his supporters so much as just what I witnessed last election, so when I see the cycle repeating itself this time around, I'm not surprised.

[Tami]

What if the Obstruction Was the Collusion? On the New York Times’s Latest Bombshell

Shortly before the holidays, I received a call from New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt asking me to meet with him about some reporting he had done. Schmidt did not describe the subject until we met up, when he went over with me a portion of the congressional interview of former FBI General Counsel James Baker, who was then my Brookings colleague and remains my Lawfare colleague. When he shared what Baker had said, and when I thought about it over the next few days in conjunction with some other documents and statements, a question gelled in my mind. Observers of the Russia investigation have generally understood Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s work as focusing on at least two separate tracks: collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, on the one hand, and potential obstruction of justice by the president, on the other. But what if the obstruction was the collusion—or at least a part of it?

Late last year, I wrote a memo for Schmidt outlining how I read all of this material, a memo from which this post is adapted.

Today, the New York Times is reporting that in the days following the firing of James Comey, the FBI opened an investigation of President Trump. It wasn’t simply the obstruction investigation that many of us have assumed. It was also a counterintelligence investigation predicated on the notion that the president’s own actions might constitute a national security threat:

In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.

The inquiry carried explosive implications. Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president’s own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence.

The investigation the F.B.I. opened into Mr. Trump also had a criminal aspect, which has long been publicly known: whether his firing of Mr. Comey constituted obstruction of justice.

[Tazirai]

Remember the sexist Bernie Bros attack. Kinda weird how all those "bros" are down with Warren and AOC

Facts. Since Castro just announced. I'm gonna wait for the smears to appear on HuffPo, Politico, and the Hill.

Also, Aja is being disingenuous when he said the Media was glowing about Bernie, but I'll leave him to it.

What type of "Boys/Bros" will they make up about Castro for running against the women out there running?

Castro Boys, Julians homies, Castro Clique?

[Tazirai]

Ideally the number of people who settle wil be as small as possible. The best candidate will have the widest appeal and broadest support. Only time will tell if there one who can do that.

Agreed with this. We'll have to wait and see who can unite the party as much as possible. The bigger the crowd, the more people will move left, and to me that's good.

[KOSLOX]

Something that happened to me repeatedly during said campaign, especially on the Salon forum.

Clinton supporters tended to be more open-minded and even-handed -- Sanders supporters seemed to think he was entitled to my vote, regardless of my own personal views or insights: I can say that without bias since I made it clear that I was willing to vote for either candidate against Trump, regardless.

That's not an attack on his supporters so much as just what I witnessed last election, so when I see the cycle repeating itself this time around, I'm not surprised.

I witnessed some pretty shitty people making those kind of moves from both camps when I caucused. I caucused for Sanders, but some woman who was a Hillary supporter stood on a desk screaming, "Just what we need another white MAN! We have more Blacks!!!!!"

I didn't deal with the racism from some of the Sanders supporters until later into the primary season once it got contentious, and especially after Clinton locked the nomination. I ended up muting a shitload of people on Facebook, a lot of Trump supporters ended up getting axed altogether though.

[aja_christopher]

Also, Aja is being disingenuous when he said the Media was glowing about Bernie, but I'll leave him to it.

Not at all -- which is why I posted a direct link to Huffpost's coverage of Sanders.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/bernie-sanders

Outside of the recent sexual harassment allegations there is essentially little to no negative press about Bernie Sanders inside said archives -- in fact the vast majority of it is positive -- and don't misrepresent me: I never said they were "glowing" about Sanders, just that they supported his more "progressive" platform over "centrist" Hillary which makes sense given the fact that they are an openly "left-wing" publication.

They do the same for Warren, as they have since before they (incorrectly) announced that she would run for the 2016 election.

And with regards to Hillary, her emails got more coverage than nearly every other "scandal" combined.

[Tazirai]

Something that happened to me repeatedly during said campaign, especially on the Salon forum.

Clinton supporters tended to be more open-minded and even-handed -- Sanders supporters seemed to think he was entitled to my vote, regardless of my own personal views or insights: I can say that without bias since I made it clear that I was willing to vote for either candidate against Trump, regardless.

That's not an attack on his supporters so much as just what I witnessed last election, so when I see the cycle repeating itself this time around, I'm not surprised.

That's not true at all. I don't have a clue where you are pulling this from. When PUMAS were so aggressive to Obama, and many of those same women and men, created the mythic Bernie Bros is problematic. That side tends to create a lot of sexist tropes against their political enemies.
Especially when 25% of Clinton Supporters refused to support Obama. Only 12% of Bernie supporters vote Trump, whose more open minded?

The Internet and this thread are not indicative of the world or US as a whole. So yeah you temper your words about us, but I sense a lot of contempt within. So if you had a bad interaction with a Sanders supporter, that's rough, but don't blanket the side you will need votes from with whoever is the nominee.

[PaulBullion]

That's not true at all. I don't have a clue where you are pulling this from. When PUMAS were so aggressive to Obama, and many of those same women and men, created the mythic Bernie Bros is problematic. That side tends to create a lot of sexist tropes against their political enemies.
Especially when 25% of Clinton Supporters refused to support Obama. Only 12% of Bernie supporters vote Trump, whose more open minded?

The Internet and this thread are not indicative of the world or US as a whole. So yeah you temper your words about us, but I sense a lot of contempt within. So if you had a bad interaction with a Sanders supporter, that's rough, but don't blanket the side you will need votes from with whoever is the nominee.

Dude, he said he was there.

[aja_christopher]

That's not true at all. I don't have a clue where you are pulling this from.

My own direct experience on the Huffpost and Salon (and CBR) forums during the 2016 elections.

You're just further proving my point about Sanders' supporters "beliefs" overriding individual perspectives -- just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it false.

For example: I posted the links to Huffpost's coverage of Sanders but rather than research the info, you immediately defend Sanders and call me "disingenuous".

So when I say that it seems cult-like, that is exactly what I mean.

[aja_christopher]

I witnessed some pretty shitty people making those kind of moves from both camps when I caucused. I caucused for Sanders, but some woman who was a Hillary supporter stood on a desk screaming, "Just what we need another white MAN! We have more Blacks!!!!!"

I didn't deal with the racism from some of the Sanders supporters until later into the primary season once it got contentious, and especially after Clinton locked the nomination. I ended up muting a shitload of people on Facebook, a lot of Trump supporters ended up getting axed altogether though.

I have no problem with Sanders, which is why the attacks on me with regards to me being biased against him are ridiculous. My main concern is that he might be too far to the left for the average American voter, which could be an issue in the general election, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't support him nor that I don't think said platform shouldn't be given a "vote" on a national level, if that's what the "Democratic" party supports (via primary).

I feel like the country could use a little "balance" after so many years of right-wing dishonesty and obstructionism and someone like Sanders or Cortez might be exactly what we need right now, if only to shift things back towards the "center".

But, overall, people didn't support Sanders in the primary so it doesn't make sense to act as if he can somehow work a miracle in the general election -- doesn't mean people shouldn't make the effort, but it likewise doesn't mean that everyone else has to buy into said "progressive" ideology, especially if they are more moderate or conservative, regardless.

[wjowski]

I find it rather baffling that some people apparently think you can have social justice without economic justice.