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

[Dalak]

Compromise only works when it’s done in good faith. Bernie supporters compromised for Hillary more than Hillary supporters compromised for Obama. Bernie supporters still got blamed for the outcome of the election, still got labeled sexist, and as you can see others in this thread trying to make a racial implication as well.

It’s blatantly a false equivalency (and quite frankly, if it was a Republican vs Democrat thing, you’d be one of the first people to point it out and dismiss the whole thing out of hand) and it’s pretty clear that a good deal of the people that begged for party unity only did it because it served the candidate they wanted.

I've blamed many things as having an impact on the 2016 election: 3rd party voters, Cross Party voters, People who refused to vote (Including those believing their vote didn't matter), Russian disinformation spread by some on all political sides, voter suppression, Comey's Letter, the media's fucked up focus, and if NC's elections are anything to go by actual ballot box stuffing went unreported. I don't think anyone with any sense can blame any one thing (Including Bernie/His Campaign) for it, despite the fact that many people try. Does that absolve supporters of Bernie who chose not to vote because they felt slighted - No. Does that feeling excuse them acting like they are entitled to have others 'bow their heads' in 2020 - No. Nor does it excuse refusing to compromise on an unknown nominee more than a year ahead of the election just because it isn't Bernie.

If you aren't willing to have a mind at least that open, then you aren't worth the effort of conversation.

E:

I don’t think it really matters if everyone is poor, in debt, can’t get real healthcare etc. At that point you’re just trading one for the other. There’s better candidates where that tradeoff doesn’t exist

See this? This is exactly what I mean. If it comes down to the wire - The candidate is nominated and that's the reality. There is no better candidates for the job than the ones on the ballot, as ones not on the ballot Will Not Be Elected.

As much as I am all for the progressive economic policies, the social and civil rights aspects are way more important to me. And jumping ship and not voting for Booker or someone, who will, at the *absolute least*, not go after people's social and civil liberties they way Trump has and has tried to...I mean, that's reason enough for me.

+1

[TheDarman]

I don’t think it really matters if everyone is poor, in debt, can’t get real healthcare etc. At that point you’re just trading one for the other. There’s better candidates where that tradeoff doesn’t exist

That may be your point of view in the primary. But at the end of the day, when going to the general, it is a case of getting one or neither. And while economic policy can be changed with greater ease (recognition by the courts has ceded a lot of ground to Congress and the president for making those decisions), social policies, like reproductive rights and social rights, will be at risk—not even to mention or foreign policy being screwed up and not allowing the right amount of cooperative international action on things like climate change. Indeed, the president has the most authority HERE. I think characters like Booker and Gillibrand can be pushed by liberal allies on domestic policy to ensure progressive economic policies fall into place provided progressives show up to put these people in a Congressional office. They would certainly be progressive on social issues. But they would also be better on foreign policy issues that really matter than Trump, where they can act the most unilaterally. We can’t forget that. To let Trump or a Republican destroy our planet seems more irresponsible than even lining donor profits, which both will do.

EDIT: Also, I think it is kind of crap that the most left-wing individuals are trying to threaten other people from voting their conscience in order to get the nominee they want. After all, no one on the more moderate side of the party is saying that they wouldn’t fall in line and vote for Bernie if the party picked him. Why is it okay to throw the country under the bus if your nominee loses but not when the other guys’ does? Do you think it is okay for any Democrat uncomfortable with Sanders and his radical economic policy to not vote for him and to let Trump win in 2020? Are you willing to argue it is okay for the other side to do what you are threatening to do? Because, if not, you lack consistency.

[InformationGeek]

So you heard about how the Trump Administration wants to help decriminalize homosexuality across the globe, right? Well, maybe someone should tell the president about it.

REPORTER: Mr President, on your push to decriminalize homosexuality, are you doing that? And why?

TRUMP: Say it?

REPORTER: Your push to decriminalize homosexuality across the world.

TRUMP: I don't know which report you're talking about. We have many reports. Anybody else?

[numberthirty]

So, the Jussie Smollett case...

He is now "Suspect" in an investigation of filing a false police report. In addition, Chicago news is running video of the brothers buying stuff for what looks a lot like a staged hate crime.

I'd say the percentage chance that a racist Chicago Police department is involved in trying to play any sort of a role in sweeping a hate crime under the rug just went to "Zero".

It's hard to see any scenario where all of this stuff happened running parallel to what would have to be a nearly perfectly executed hate crime.

[numberthirty]

I already know all the shit you will say about it, but I can't help from comment that it's just nuts to me that anyone on the left would rather Trump be president than Booker or Gillibrand, no matter their problem with them.

Also, I don't think Tulsi will make it far, but weird you aren't into her. She appeared to be the go to for if Bernie is not running for that crowd.

She has a ton of problems but domestic ideas I agree with, but some of the comments she has made in the past regarding gay marriage and such are tough to stomach no matter, no matter her reversal or whatever. But still, if she somehow landed the nom, I'll be voting for her in the general. She is way better than Trump.

Which is a non-issue.

[numberthirty]

You are entrenched and tribal as hell, man. It's okay though, I am too. I'm just not loyal to one specific person who I have deified beyond all hope and reason, such as people have with Trump and Bernie.

I'm already seeing Bernie people in comments referring to Kamala as "black Hillary". People can have their problems with Kamala, as some do, but now I guess she's gonna have to answer to Bernie for all of the Hillary vs. Bernie stuff from 2016. Things are gonna turn out well.

I'd like a list of these people, and links to where they are doing so.

Edit:

Come to think of it, anything that looks like potential proof that these are people that actually exist out in the physical world would also be good.

[BeastieRunner]

Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love.

[numberthirty]

I don’t think it really matters if everyone is poor, in debt, can’t get real healthcare etc. At that point you’re just trading one for the other. There’s better candidates where that tradeoff doesn’t exist

Ultimately, this cannot be stressed enough.

If Democratic Party primary voters want to nominate a person that everyone who will have a vote during the General will be able to see was not the most serious possibility to address the things that Knight mentioned, they need to at least be realistic about that they did so.

It's just not realistic to have a group of voters who are probably a third of possible General Election voters pick who they want, and expect voters who are not a part of their party to back that person with enthusiasm just because there will only be two realistic options.

[BeastieRunner]

The Mueller Report is coming in the next few days or early next week.

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/182334...tion-next-week
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1Q92G9

[numberthirty]

The Mueller Report is coming in the next few days or early next week.

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/182334...tion-next-week
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1Q92G9

You know, I heard this on the radio and on this evening's news.

Is this a head fake, or is it likely?

[BeastieRunner]

You know, I heard this on the radio and on this evening's news.

Is this a head fake, or is it likely?

DOJ and WH are the source.

Take that for what you will.

Also, a report from Mueller does not necessarily mean the end of the Russia investigation. There are still multiple ongoing court cases and cooperating witnesses stemming from it. It also depends on how Barr handles it. He said he would take the report and give Congress his own summary.

https://www.businessinsider.com/muel...xt-week-2019-2

[ed2962]

So we're saying that Clinton is Metallica's "Load" and Harris is "ReLoad"? And Booker is "St Anger?"

[Tazirai]

Huge Split Between Older and Younger Blacks in the Democratic Primary

African-Americans have been sharply divided along age lines during the Democratic primary, with black voters under 30 narrowly favoring Sen. Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton, while older blacks overwhelmingly backed the former secretary of state.

Clinton has won more than 70 percent of the African-American vote in most of the states with a sizable black population that have held primaries or caucuses. Her advantage among African-Americans has been one of the most important factors in her delegate lead over Sanders.

But an analysis of 25 states that held primaries and where exit polls were conducted by NBC News showed that one of Sanders’ challenges is that younger blacks are not voting in large numbers. Sanders, according to the exit polls in these states, received 52 percent of the votes of African-Americans under 30, compared to 47 percent for Clinton.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

That may be your point of view in the primary. But at the end of the day, when going to the general, it is a case of getting one or neither. And while economic policy can be changed with greater ease (recognition by the courts has ceded a lot of ground to Congress and the president for making those decisions), social policies, like reproductive rights and social rights, will be at risk—not even to mention or foreign policy being screwed up and not allowing the right amount of cooperative international action on things like climate change. Indeed, the president has the most authority HERE. I think characters like Booker and Gillibrand can be pushed by liberal allies on domestic policy to ensure progressive economic policies fall into place provided progressives show up to put these people in a Congressional office. They would certainly be progressive on social issues. But they would also be better on foreign policy issues that really matter than Trump, where they can act the most unilaterally. We can’t forget that. To let Trump or a Republican destroy our planet seems more irresponsible than even lining donor profits, which both will do.

EDIT: Also, I think it is kind of crap that the most left-wing individuals are trying to threaten other people from voting their conscience in order to get the nominee they want. After all, no one on the more moderate side of the party is saying that they wouldn’t fall in line and vote for Bernie if the party picked him. Why is it okay to throw the country under the bus if your nominee loses but not when the other guys’ does? Do you think it is okay for any Democrat uncomfortable with Sanders and his radical economic policy to not vote for him and to let Trump win in 2020? Are you willing to argue it is okay for the other side to do what you are threatening to do? Because, if not, you lack consistency.

I think anybody can vote for whoever they want to. I just think it's a crap excuse to say "you are threatening people from voting their conscious". That's just trying to have it both ways. So I shouldn't tell you that I'm voting my concious if certain people that I don't like get nominated because it might dissaude you from voting for certain people. So it's a one sides concession anyways. I think people can vote or not vote for whoever they want. There's already a contingent of people on here who hate Bernie and I doubt some of them would vote for him. There's already been hashtags of never Bernie. So again, sympathy meter is low regardless.

I don't trust Booker or Gillibrand on economic policies. I just simply don't and they've given me no reason too. I have no doubt in my mind that Sanders or Warren will push economic policies and civil and personal liberties will be guarded on their watch as much as they would under most Democratic candidates. I'm not worried about that as much with the rest of the field. I think there is a far greater division in the party on economic policy. I think campaign finance is easily the most important issue that is plaguing American politics and I have no doubt in my mind that Booker and Gillibrand will do nothing on that front, if not make it worse.


So no, I absolutely view the economic angle as the differentiator amongst the Democrats. And one I find so blatantly unacceptable that I wouldn't vote for it. And if that's the path the Democratic Party wants to go down, then by all means go down it, just accept that you are going to sacrafice a contingent of voters you've been trying to cater for decades and failing for decades

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

So we're saying that Clinton is Metallica's "Load" and Harris is "ReLoad"? And Booker is "St Anger?"

Hillary was Load, Gillibrand is ReLoad, and Booker is St. Anger.

Bernie is Master of Pupperts. Warren is Ride the Lightning.

Harris is a new album coming out and has the potential to be Death Magnetic (an imperfect but acceptable attempt at the right thing) or Lulu (an ill conceived project that's happening because fuck it we are out of real ideas)

Biden is probably the Black Album. A sanitizied version that combines the good stuff you loved with some cheesy stuff you hate, but ultimately is the cleanest and easily sellable album on the market.