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

[wjowski]

You guys sound like Hillary supporters way back in the 2008 primaries.

[MidTierHero]

A teenager just cracked an egg on the back of Australian Senator Fraser Anning's head, who immediately turned around and punched him in the face.

And there is video:

https://twitter.com/Henry_Belot/stat...90914414919681

That’s the correct response to getting an egg cracked on your head.

[PaulBullion]

Sadly this is true. While a person’s appearance shouldn’t effect the outcome of a vote, image is important in a political race. Kennedy being more tv friendly in 1960 gave him an edge over sweaty Nixon and his 5 o’clock shadow. Bernie’s opponents like to label him as a crazy old man. With his hair looking very Doc Brown-like and a fresh wound on his head, he’s playing right into that. Most voters don’t give a crap what he looks like but I’m sure there are undecided voters (aka morons) who will judge a book by its cover.

Can you imagine the media's reaction if Harris and Warren campaigned as "Kammie" and "Lizzie" respectively, and went out without combing their hair and putting on makeup?

[PaulBullion]

Speaking of Lizzie Warren, her already very policy based campaign (remember her universal childcare plan?) has a new affordable housing plan:

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1106920618145079296

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Fox has taken Pirro and her show off the air.

The amount of adverts lost spooked them.

Tucker's show appears to be getting taken off the air next.

Best news I've heard all week. Losing advertising dollars is the ONLY thing that forces the suits at Faux News to take action against the psychos they put onscreen.

====================

The New Zealand Shooter’s Rhetoric Sounds Like Something You Might Hear In Congress

We should talk about why that is. Damn straight!

**********

Mass Shooters Have Exploited The Internet For Years. New Zealand Took It To A New Level.

The Christchurch massacre was built on existing far-right memes that fueled a live-streaming gunman’s viral aspirations.

**********

Trump Has Touted Debunked Story About U.S. General Killing 49 Muslims To End Terrorism

Bullets were “dipped in pig’s blood,” he recounted in horror tale, one of many past comments coming under increasing scrutiny in the wake of Christchurch attack.

**********

How To Fight Islamophobia In America, No Matter Your Faith

The U.S. is no stranger to discrimination against Muslims. Here’s how you can fight back.

**********

Don Jr. Defends Chelsea Clinton Against ‘Sickening’ Islamophobia Accusation

Clinton was accosted by an NYU student who claimed the violence was “stoked by people like you.”

[numberthirty]

This...

Sadly this is true. While a person’s appearance shouldn’t effect the outcome of a vote, image is important in a political race. Kennedy being more tv friendly in 1960 gave him an edge over sweaty Nixon and his 5 o’clock shadow. Bernie’s opponents like to label him as a crazy old man. With his hair looking very Doc Brown-like and a fresh wound on his head, he’s playing right into that. Most voters don’t give a crap what he looks like but I’m sure there are undecided voters (aka morons) who will judge a book by its cover.

Is essentially a non-issue when this...

Trump is on the opposite end of the old man looks spectrum. He has that desperate old rich guy trying to appear young look. With the ridiculous hair and orange spray tan.

is the case.

You could start insisting on being called "Bozo", and turn up with a mohawk. No biggie.

A guy going by "Beto" being the obvious example. There's a reason not to vote for him. That he's going by "Beto" ain't exactly high up on that list.

[aja_christopher]

So that this piece might get the looks that it actually deserves...

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articl...id-morons.html

Fair enough.

Guess it's open season on Sanders now since that's how you want to play this.

If you want to call people who support a candidate "morons" for their choice then Sanders supporters are fair game as well -- especially given the fact that even Sanders' supporters don't want to pay for the policies he espouses.

------
"Most Bernie Sanders supporters aren't willing to pay for his revolution"

"Bernie Sanders says his platform makes financial sense for most Americans. For example, his campaign says Sanders's single-payer health care system would save an average family of four almost $6,000 per year. But in order to pay for his proposed programs, Sanders needs to increase taxes on virtually everyone in America. So if you're a voter, the question is simple:

Are you willing to pay more taxes for his proposals, like nationalized health care and free public college tuition?
How much more?

When we polled voters, we found most Sanders supporters aren't willing to pay more than an additional $1,000 in taxes for his biggest proposals. That's well short of how much more the average taxpayer would pay under his tax plan. We conducted a poll the week of April 4 in partnership with the nonpartisan technology and media company Morning Consult. In it, we asked voters how much more they would be willing to pay for two of Sanders's big propositions: a universal health care system covering all Americans and free tuition at public colleges and universities.

Most Americans say they are willing to pay something extra for these programs:

Nationalized health care: Around 80 percent of Sanders supporters are willing to pay more in federal taxes for universal health care coverage, compared with about 70 percent of Clinton supporters and about 40 percent of those supporting a Republican candidate.

Free public college tuition: A slightly lower percentage of people were willing to pay more for free public college tuition: 80 percent of Sanders supporters, 60 percent of Clinton supporters, and about 40 percent of those supporting a Republican candidate.

But when we look at how much more voters are willing to pay, we get a better idea of how voters view Sanders's plan.

About 66 percent of Sanders supporters said they wouldn't be willing to pay more than an additional $1,000 in taxes for universal health care. This includes the 8 percent of Sanders supporters who aren't willing to pay anything at all.

When we asked what percentage of their income they would pay, rather than a dollar figure, voters seem to be a bit more generous.

While half of Sanders supporters said they aren't willing to pay or that they're only willing to pay less than 5 percent of their income, a quarter said they would pay between 5 and 10 percent. In 2015, the average person on an employer-sponsored health plan paid a little more than $1,000 annually in premiums, and the average family paid nearly $5,000, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation...

In other words, even Sanders supporters are saying they don't want to pay as much to the federal government for health care as they are paying right now in the private sector.

But Sanders's plan to pay for universal health care coverage would increase taxes on most voters by more than $1,000. He wants to:

Add a 2.2 percentage point surcharge on individual incomes. This means marginal tax rates go up for everyone. (After a standard deduction, about a quarter of households won't have to pay this surcharge.)

Add a new 6.2 percent tax on earnings, which employers pay — but will be passed on to workers over time in the form of lower wages, according to the Tax Policy Center's Roberton Williams.

The kicker for all of this? Some analysts believe Sanders's plan will cost twice as much as his campaign estimates....

Many Sanders supporters don't want to Feel the Bern in their wallets -- Sanders's plan would put an additional $5,000 of federal tax liability on households earning $50,000, but in exchange he would nationalize vital services currently in the private sector. That means at least some of the money we're now paying private companies would be paid to the federal government instead.

But the majority of Sanders supporters in our poll (much less all voters) aren't willing to pay enough to actually support those nationalized services. This isn't a question of whether Sanders's ideas are valid. This is a question of how voters are thinking about Sanders's revolution, which is a radical increase in the scope of what government is responsible for, versus the private sector.

To their credit, some Sanders supporters have done the math and figured out that even with big tax increases, they would end up saving more money from Sanders's new programs. But many other people were surprised when they used our candidate tax calculator and found out how much additional taxes they would pay under Sanders's plan.

Yet that's the revolution — one that promises Medicare for all, public college tuition for all, massive investments in infrastructure, expanded Social Security, etc. Those services require higher taxes, but could also save people money in the long run.

It's a shift in the way we think about how we pay for social services. But right now, it appears that even Sanders supporters haven't gotten their heads around what that means for their finances."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...tax-revolution

[aja_christopher]

"If Sanders' Attempt to Win Black Voters is a Redux of 2016, It Won't Be Enough"

"With his name recognition as high as it is, exactly who was the intended audience? There’s no question it was black voters. The focus of his speeches, the guests that accompanied him on stage, and his visit to Selma, Alabama to commemorate the 54th anniversary of Bloody Sunday made it clear that the Sanders’ campaign believes it must improve its black outreach.

But it was also clear to those who tuned in that his approach to winning over black voters in 2020 is going to look a lot like 2016. And that’s probably not going to be enough.

Sanders’ trouble with black voters is well-chronicled. Hillary Clinton bested Sanders by wide margins, getting more than 70% of the black vote in the 2016 Democratic primaries. With black voters comprising 27% of the primary electorate, candidates will need to perform well with them if they have any hopes of becoming the nominee. The Sanders’ team came to this stark realization following 2016’s crushing loss in South Carolina, writing in a campaign memo: “The margin by which we lost the African American vote has got to be – at the very least – cut in half or there simply is no path to victory.”

Part of the critique against Sanders is that his class-based economic policies crowd the distinct experiences of black Americans out of his agenda. The universal programs he supports – $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All, tuition-free college – don’t address head-on the stubborn racial disparities that persist even among similarly situated black and white Americans. Certainly, racial and economic inequalities are entangled, but race remains the primary determinant of one’s socioeconomic status.

In Chicago, Sanders acknowledged this inconvenient truth. “Our campaign is about fundamentally ending the disparity of wealth and power in this country,” he told the audience of more than 12,000. “But as we do that, we must speak out against the disparity within the disparity.” He then listed a number of troublesome racial disparities concerning the wealth gap, infant and maternal mortality rates, health outcomes and the criminal justice system.

And then he moved on.

There was no mention of targeted programs to reduce those disparities – only a return to his standard stump speech on the dangers of rampant economic inequality. Just before wrapping up, he vowed to “address the racial disparities of wealth and income” and “root out institutional racism”. But his preferred means to accomplishing these ends still appear to center on colorblind policies."



https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...n-black-voters

[numberthirty]

Fair enough.

Guess it's open season on Sanders now since that's how you want to play this.

If you want to call people who support a candidate "morons" for their choice then Sanders supporters are fair game as well -- especially given the fact that even Sanders' supporters don't want to pay for the policies he espouses.

Let's roll tape on if that actually appears to be what the article's author is saying...

If, on the other hand, you shuddered in something like horror, get ready for a nightmarish year of watching this candidate attract the most superficial, issue-ignorant, aesthetically inclined simpletons disguised as thoughtful voters. Watch them flock to him like moths to a flame. As Matt Christman put it, in his own vision of dystopia:

Doesn't really feel that way to me.

More "This Is The Bonhead's Candidate..." than "Boneheads Are The Supporters Of This Candidate..."

[aja_christopher]

(Cont'd)

"There was no mention of targeted programs to reduce those disparities – only a return to his standard stump speech on the dangers of rampant economic inequality. Just before wrapping up, he vowed to “address the racial disparities of wealth and income” and “root out institutional racism”. But his preferred means to accomplishing these ends still appear to center on colorblind policies.

Sanders’ progressive agenda probably plays better with white liberals than with black Americans -- these tips-of-the-hat to black Americans’ disparate experience are unlikely to move the electorate into his coalition in any significant way for a few reasons. First, history has fostered a political pragmatism within the black electorate that tends to prefer moderate Democratic candidates who have a track record of deep and persistent engagement. Because of the centrality of the civil rights question, black voters most often support presidential candidates they trust with protecting the gains made to date. This trust is earned over time or through a shared lived experience. This is why establishment candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, and why black candidates like Barack Obama and Kamala Harris, have the inside track with this bloc. Sanders has yet to show he can break through.

While the number of Democratic white voters who describe their views as liberal has nearly doubled from 28% in 2000 to 55% in 2016, the number of black voters has remained basically the same – 25-28% – in that same time frame. So, Sanders’ progressive agenda probably plays better with white liberals than with black Americans.

And to the extent that specific progressive policies are appealing to black voters, such as raising the minimum wage or universal healthcare, that is now a crowded space where Sanders doesn’t necessarily hold a discernible advantage. Fellow Senators Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Kirstin Gillibrand also support those policies. And further, several Democratic nominees have voiced generic support for reparations whereas Sanders remains noncommittal and, instead, prefers to discuss an anti-poverty program championed by Representative Jim Clyburn.

And third, pointing to his actions in the civil rights movement or seeking endorsement by black political elites are unlikely to sway black voters. Research shows that black public opinion is developed at the grassroots level and not acquired from political elites, especially as it pertains to insurgent movements that challenge the establishment and status quo. Sanders will likely not be able to manufacture a bump in support among black voters through top-down appeals. Sustained and funded engagement at the local level is his best shot at improving his standing.

This is not to say, of course, that Sanders’ policy prescriptions do not address racial disparities at all. Universal programs can raise the floor and improve the quality of life of those at or near the bottom, bringing them closer to the median. And Sanders’ apparent willingness to speak more directly to material racial inequalities is a welcome development. But if the goal of his campaign launch weekend was to woo black voters with his reliable message on economic inequality interspersed with personal narrative, it fell short."

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...n-black-voters

[numberthirty]

One other thing...

Fair enough.

Guess it's open season on Sanders now since that's how you want to play this.

If you want to call people who support a candidate "morons" for their choice then Sanders supporters are fair game as well -- especially given the fact that even Sanders' supporters don't want to pay for the policies he espouses.

...

If you haven't caught that it already is open season on Sanders, you might want to take a second look.

[aja_christopher]

"Why Senator Bernie Sanders Lost My Support"

"When Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) entered the presidential race in the spring of 2015, I became a fervent supporter of his campaign almost immediately. I’d never heard of the Vermont senator before, but when I learned of his stance on health care, education, and the minimum wage, I was hooked.

I wasn’t alone: Sanders’s alignment with socialist values, his refusal to accept corporate funding for his campaign, and his anti-establishment rhetoric struck a chord with me and thousands of people across the U.S., quickly turning him into a household name for the radicalization of America’s political left.

Despite the fact that he was 73 years old at the time, Sanders mobilized young people like me by the masses. His promise to hold government accountable, protect the environment, and champion the rights of women, LGBTQ communities, and people of color became a much-needed foil to the rising popularity of now president Donald Trump and his hateful platform. Throughout the election season, I volunteered to register voters through my university’s pro-Bernie group, canvassed for the senator at my local farmers market, and waited in line for hours to see Sanders and Killer Mike speak at a rally at Morehouse College.

But a lot has changed since 2016, much of which has made me grow increasingly remorseful of my active participation in his campaign.

In the past four years, Sanders’s words and actions have shown me time and time again that he is more concerned with boosting his image as a white savior figure of social justice than actually uplifting the voices of the communities he so direly pretends to represent. In fact, a New York Times article recently described how his campaign — the one I volunteered to support — initially focused on predominantly white states and failed to gain momentum with black voters in southern states, while black staff members told the Times they faced a plethora of microaggressions from white campaign leaders.

Sanders implied that he has faced discrimination as a white man in the U.S. while suggesting we shouldn’t consider a candidate’s identity when choosing who to vote for. This, to me, feels like the equivalent of him telling everyone who is not a straight, white, cisgender male that we shouldn’t care about seeing ourselves represented in our government.

And despite his “progressive” statements on everything from bodily autonomy to a history of imperialist U.S. intervention abroad, Sanders has not always followed through on actions that actually align with those values, which is why my diminishing support for the senator has been a long time coming. He was among the 100 senators who signed a letter to the United Nations asking to improve its treatment of Israel in 2017, which I disagree with. The following year, he voted in favor of a package of legislation known as FOSTA-SESTA, which makes sex work considerably more difficult and dangerous.

And when it comes to gender and race, his lack of solidarity speaks volumes.

From failing to denounce some of his supporters’ racist and sexist language to saying that white people who “felt uncomfortable” voting for black candidates Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum in the 2018 midterms are not “necessarily racist,” Sanders has continually flexed his privilege as a white man in politics — oftentimes, directly at the expense of people of color, especially women. In 2016 he refused to outwardly address allegations of gendered pay disparities and sexual harassment within his campaign. As someone who poured much of my energy and money into Sanders’s election bid, not to mention trusted a male candidate when he spoke of gender equality, I couldn’t believe how easily he downplayed the serious claims from his female staffers.

He apologized to those women this year as he geared up to relaunch his election bid, but I see the damage as done...

As much as Sanders and many of his white supporters keep trying to convince the rest of us that he’s an ally to people of color because he attended the March on Washington, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke, standing up against racism 60 years ago doesn’t qualify as doing the work it takes to combat oppression in today’s world. It’s what he’s doing now that counts the most, and Sanders’s newest request to ignore race, gender, and sexual orientation seems like an admittance that these injustices — because they don’t apply to him or his primarily white base of voters directly — will not be prioritized in the way he runs his campaign this time around, either..."

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/bern...ost-my-support

[PaulBullion]

One other thing...



If you haven't caught that it already is open season on Sanders, you might want to take a second look.

Oh please.

Did anybody even bring up how shady the Sanders Institute was, and what the optics are of it quietly going away now?

[aja_christopher]

Oh please.

Did anybody even bring up how shady the Sanders Institute was, and what the optics are of it quietly going away now?

I know for a fact I held my tongue in the name of solidarity plenty of times -- but that only works when both groups seek to work together without tearing one another down.



Many Sanders supporters have shown from the start they don't have a problem with tearing down the entire Democratic party if they don't get their way and last election proved it -- probably was too idealistic to assume they might change in the meantime.

[PaulBullion]

I know for a fact I held my tongue in the name of solidarity plenty of times -- but that only works when both groups seek to work together without tearing one another down.



Many Sanders supporters have shown from the start they don't have a problem with tearing down the entire Democratic party if they don't get their way and last election proved it -- probably was too idealistic to assume they might change in the meantime.

Another thing I (up until #30 posted the hit piece on Beto) felt was too petty to bring up:
In the summer of 2018, Corey Booker came out with a "jobs guarantee" plan. As the article states, Sanders claimed he had just that kind of plan "in the works", too.

So far, no Sanders plan. I guess it will come "soon"?