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

[aja_christopher]

The Stonewalling will be their strategy for whatever dem gets in the white house. But I think they afraid of dems who hold more progressive or outlier views because outliers seem to catch the imagination of the public. What's funny is that outliers ( I'd place Gabbard in that class as well) also frighten the establishment democrats because they are outside of the status quo and these establishment dems have found a way to make the status quo work for themselves.

I don't have any problem with progressive views -- given how far right our country has swung over the past few decades, I see them as a balance.

The real issue is whether the average voter will support them and -- in my opinion -- this isn't the time to experiment with ideas that can't even win primaries, much less general elections.

The bottom line is that Rome wasn't built in a day: get enough progressives into Congress (including the White House and the Senate) to pass legislation into law and then push your agenda, preferably without sabotaging the party that got you there in the first place.

We have a situation where certain "leftist" factions lose the vote dramatically, and yet still feel entitled to dictate the Democratic party as a whole.

[InformationGeek]

Leave to the GOP to bring back some old fashion racism with taking shots at Beto O'Rourke's Irish heritage.

On this St. Paddy's Day, a special message from noted Irishman Robert Francis O'Rourke.

Hey people complaining about racism towards white people, you may want to get on this.

[ed2962]

I don't have any problem with progressive views -- given how far right our country has swung over the past few years, I see them as a balance.

The real issue is whether the average voter will support them and -- in my opinion -- this isn't the time to experiment with ideas that can't even win primaries, much less general elections.

The bottom line is that Rome wasn't built in a day: get enough progressives into Congress (including the White House and the Senate) to pass legislation into law and then push your agenda, preferably without sabotaging the party that got you there in the first place.

We have a situation where certain "leftist" factions lose the vote dramatically, and yet still feel entitled to dictate the Democratic party as a whole.

I'd say that the average voter probably would support those ideas if a nominee were brave enough to champion said ideas. Expanding Medicare or reducing student debt or raising the minimum wage aren't super experimental policies, but some democrats are real wishy-washy about it. The whole reason that folks like AOC have support in the first place is because they were willing to say what they believe in and not acquiesce to the FOX news definition of who they are.

[aja_christopher]

I'd say that the average voter probably would support those ideas if a nominee were brave enough to champion said ideas. Expanding Medicare or reducing student debt or raising the minimum wage aren't super experimental policies, but some democrats are real wishy-washy about it. The whole reason that folks like AOC have support in the first place is because they were willing to say what they believe in and not acquiesce to the FOX news definition of who they are.

I agree with that as well but we'll need a lot more AOC's in Congress to make a real shift towards passing actual progressive legislation -- in the meantime there's no reason to let infighting destroy the real "liberal" political progress that has already been made (primarily by moderates like Clinton and Obama) in an effort to sell people on newer ideas.

This is something that happens nearly every time the Democrats come into power, so as exciting as it might look for those who haven't seen it before, many of us know better -- Democrats gain power and then start fighting amongst themselves over how "progressive" they should be and then achieve little to nothing before the Republicans take over Congress and wipe out all of their gains.

Whether AOC is different or not remains to be seen, but this is a path that the Democrats have traveled before -- nearly every election, in fact.

At root, I'm just suggesting putting the horse before the cart.

[Mister Mets]

Vietnam war lasted roughly 20 years. America beat that number in the last 5. Your gun violence killed MORE AMERICANS THEN A WAR YOU LOST IN A QUARTER OF THE TIME.

I compared individual odds.

About 2.6 million served in Vietnam, so a high casualty rate is a significant percentage.

I know you didn't -- you just use "t-shirts" to try to argue that they support them so I called you out on it and told you to show factual proof.

Which you couldn't.



No, it wasn't -- most non-Republican voters weren't even thinking the Supreme Court when they cast their votes -- if they voted at all: "litigation" is a legal process, not a voting process and if it were actuallly "litigated" you'd probably lose all of your picks due to Trump's blatant campaign violations, minority voter disenfranchisement and Russian collusion.

But it wasn't "litigated", regardless.

Mets, the dishonesty in your arguments in on par with Trump, which makes perfect sense since he is the person your party nominated to the presidency.

I've often seen you talking about people like you think they are stupid and it shows in nearly every post you make.



We're not -- aside from maybe thinking it was possible to have an honest and objective dialogue with someone who supports the Republican party -- a lesson learned the hard way by Obama and confirmed with the majority of your responses.

I have provided factual proof. The shirt matters because every member of the DNC voted for that guy to be a major representative of the party, and there was no public repudiation.

There have been times when prominent members of the Democratic party have lied about their political positions for electoral gain, as when everyone running for the presidential nomination in 2008 was against gay marriage, at a time when 49 percent of Democrats were in favor of it. Legal immigration is unusual as a policy matter in that the entire party is unwilling to express any opinion on limiting principles. From that, I would draw a negative inference.

As for the Supreme Court seat, voters had the knowledge that a Supreme Court seat was explicitly at stake in the 2016 election. There is a view among political scientists that it swung the election for Trump.

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/29/175110...kennedy-retire

They were able to make the decision on the merits of whether Trump or Hillary Clinton should pick Scalia's replacement.

Brains aren't fully developed until around 25. And the risk-assessment areas of the brain are some of the last to develop. No one is going to argue to raise the voting age to 25. (The age restrictions on different federal offices accounts for this anyway, since a voter is largely voting for a representative, not policy directly.)

By eighteen, kids are still making some permanent decisions without parental consent, so it seems like a reasonable cutoff.

And people without children vote for people who will decide how education and other child-related policy will be made. City voters will vote for people who will help decide farm policy. Blue Bloods vote for people who will decide how anti-poverty policy works.

If we really want to put a policy out of reach of ignorance, it should probably be science. A scientifically illiterate electorate votes for a nearly scientifically illiterate government that essentially decides what science we choose to believe . . . as if that's how science works.

I can understand the arguments for some kind of polling tests to determine a higher rate of numeracy and knowledge in the voters, but it's just not worth the downsides.

Polling tests have historically been abused in the past for bigoted means. Giving the government the power to do that again is rife with corruption, since they'll have incentives to go with questions that prime voters in a particular way, or that weed out types of voters.

"From Sydney to Seoul, Cape Town to New York, children skipped school en masse Friday to demand action on climate change"

"“I’m supposed to be in school, but instead I’m out here trying to make sure that my kids don’t grow up in a wasteland.” — Arielle Geismar, 17"

It was a stark display of the alarm of a generation. It was also a glimpse of the anger directed at older people who have not, in the protesters’ view, taken global warming seriously enough. The student protests, first inspired by a 16-year-old Swedish girl named Greta Thunberg, have spread across Europe in recent months. Thousands have marched in Berlin, Brussels, London and other European capitals on Fridays over the last several months.

In the United States, there have been small protests in a number of cities, including New York, where a high school student named Alexandria Villasenor has stood outside the United Nations every week for the last 13 weeks. The largest strikes on Friday seemed to be outside of the United States.

The strikes have underscored a significant generation gap in concern about climate change, particularly in a handful of countries. The 20 warmest years on record have all come in the past 22 years, essentially the lifetime of today’s children and young adults. In a recent Pew survey, carried out in 26 countries, a significantly larger share of young people said they worried about the threat of climate change, compared to people over the age of 50, in the United States, France, Australia and the Philippines.

In the Pew survey, the generation gap was significant even after statisticians controlled for political affiliations. And in the five years since the global survey began, concern about climate change has swelled overall among Americans, but at a far higher rate among young people. Other surveys have found that younger Republicans to be significantly more concerned about climate change than older members of the party.

Nadia Nazar, 16, from Baltimore, one of the organizers of the Friday rally in Washington, said young people didn’t see the crisis in the same way.

“My generation is first generation that will be significantly affected,” she said. “I want them to understand they’ve been able to live pretty normal lives. If climate changes continues and gets worse and worse then we won't be able to.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/c...l-strikes.html

Is children cutting class really particularly meaningful?

Controversial Opinions:

Bidden is running because he doesn't like these uppity progressives with their loud music and wants them to get off his lawn. He thinks Sanders should cut his hair and get a job.

The GOP would LOVE for someone like Harris or Booker to be the democratic nominee. These are watered down version of Clinton and Obama and they already know how to deal with them. They are frightened by Sanders because his actual policies poll well with their audience. It's why they spend so much time attacking AOC who has similar views...they are attacking Bernie by proxy.

Why couldn't Biden be running because he has wanted to be President for a long time, is well-positioned due to circumstances beyond his control (a flawed Republican dominating the rust belt) and has tremendous experience?

Leave to the GOP to bring back some old fashion racism with taking shots at Beto O'Rourke's Irish heritage.




Hey people complaining about racism towards white people, you may want to get on this.

It's a reference to the idea that the guy used a Hispanic-sounding nickname to win elections in the past.

[aja_christopher]

I have provided factual proof.

You have provided no factual proof that the majority of Democrats are for "open borders" nor that they wish to pass said legislation outside of your biased opinion about a t-shirt.

You've also provided no factual proof that the election "litigated" the stealing of a Supreme Court pick because no objective "litigation" happened.

I'm done repeating myself since I've said this from the start -- if you want to believe your lies, that's fine, but don't expect others to buy them.

This is primarily to avoid discussing the faults of your party regardless -- Gaslight, Obstruct, Project.

-----
"Thousands of migrant children report they were sexually assaulted in U.S. custody"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...in/2988884002/

[ed2962]

I agree with that as well but we'll need a lot more AOC's in Congress to make a real shift towards passing actual progressive legislation -- in the meantime there's no reason to let infighting destroy the real "liberal" political progress that has already been made (primarily by moderates like Clinton and Obama) in an effort to sell people on newer ideas.

This is something that happens nearly every time the Democrats come into power, so as exciting as it might look for those who haven't seen it before, many of us know better -- Democrats gain power and then start fighting amongst themselves over how "progressive" they should be and then achieve little to nothing before the Republicans take over Congress and wipe out all of their gains.

Whether AOC is different or not remains to be seen, but this is a path that the Democrats have traveled before -- nearly every election, in fact.

At root, I'm just suggesting putting the horse before the cart.

Thing is though, we won't get real change if we keep voting in milquetoast dems who won't scare the republicans or corporate dems who benefit from the status quo. I don't think that the problem is that dems get into power and then start fighting among themselves, it's that they don't want to rock the boat.

[aja_christopher]

Thing is though, we won't get real change if we keep voting in milquetoast dems who won't scare the republicans or corporate dems who benefit from the status quo. I don't think that the problem is that dems get into power and then start fighting among themselves, it's that they don't want to rock the boat.

I disagree -- we got plenty of change during Obama's first few years: as someone who benefited from the health care changes when I was injured at my job and couldn't afford COBRA while I couldn't work, I can attest to that.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazi...complishments/

Then Democrats got lazy/comfortable and didn't show up to vote for the midterms despite the progress that was made, and they had to deal with Republican obstruction for the rest of his presidency.

That's not the fault of the Democratic party -- that's the fault of a lazy electorate. An argument can be made that the Democrats should have been more "inspiring" but politics isn't showbiz and ultimately it's the responsibility of the voter to stay informed, regardless.

Maybe Trump woke them up though -- we'll see how long it lasts, but given the fact that Bush wasn't that long ago, I'm not holding my breath either way.

[ed2962]

I compared individual odds.

About 2.6 million served in Vietnam, so a high casualty rate is a significant percentage.

I have provided factual proof. The shirt matters because every member of the DNC voted for that guy to be a major representative of the party, and there was no public repudiation.

There have been times when prominent members of the Democratic party have lied about their political positions for electoral gain, as when everyone running for the presidential nomination in 2008 was against gay marriage, at a time when 49 percent of Democrats were in favor of it. Legal immigration is unusual as a policy matter in that the entire party is unwilling to express any opinion on limiting principles. From that, I would draw a negative inference.

As for the Supreme Court seat, voters had the knowledge that a Supreme Court seat was explicitly at stake in the 2016 election. There is a view among political scientists that it swung the election for Trump.

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/29/175110...kennedy-retire

They were able to make the decision on the merits of whether Trump or Hillary Clinton should pick Scalia's replacement.

By eighteen, kids are still making some permanent decisions without parental consent, so it seems like a reasonable cutoff.

I can understand the arguments for some kind of polling tests to determine a higher rate of numeracy and knowledge in the voters, but it's just not worth the downsides.

Polling tests have historically been abused in the past for bigoted means. Giving the government the power to do that again is rife with corruption, since they'll have incentives to go with questions that prime voters in a particular way, or that weed out types of voters.


Is children cutting class really particularly meaningful?

Why couldn't Biden be running because he has wanted to be President for a long time, is well-positioned due to circumstances beyond his control (a flawed Republican dominating the rust belt) and has tremendous experience?

It's a reference to the idea that the guy used a Hispanic-sounding nickname to win elections in the past.

He's talked before about family issues and what not as a reason to not throw himself in a presidential run, but now he's the Rolling Stones and sees that disco is getting big so he has to release "Emotional Rescue."

[ed2962]

I disagree -- we got plenty of change during Obama's first few years: as someone who benefited from the health care changes when I was injured at my job and couldn't afford COBRA while I couldn't work, I can attest to that.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazi...complishments/

Then Democrats got lazy/comfortable and didn't show up to vote for the midterms despite the progress that was made, and they had to deal with Republican obstruction for the rest of his presidency.

That's not the fault of the Democratic party -- that's the fault of a lazy electorate. An argument can be made that the Democrats should have been more "inspiring" but politics isn't showbiz and ultimately it's the responsibility of the voter to stay informed, regardless.

Maybe Trump woke them up though -- we'll see how long it lasts, but given the fact that Bush wasn't that long ago, I'm not holding my breath either way.

Oh, I'm not knocking Obama, I'm skeptical of Obama-lite. I want someone who'll take it further which I'm not sure Booker, Harris, or Gillibrand will do.

[aja_christopher]

Oh, I'm not knocking Obama, I'm skeptical of Obama-lite. I want someone who'll take it further which I'm not sure Booker, Harris, or Gillibrand will do.

I hear you on that -- that's why I'm staying open for the primaries.

We've got a lot of options, so there's no reason not to explore all of them before making a final decision.

Important to focus on the Senate -- and keeping the House -- as well. Republicans have already proven that they will try to obstruct or roll back anything they deem even remotely "progressive" (science funding, moderate judges, health care, social security, voting rights, etc) if they control even one branch of Congress.

The bottom line, however, is that the Democrats need to remember they have more in common than differences because a house divided will not stand.

-----
"Midterms show moderates are far from being politically extinct"

"For years, partisans and ideologues have assured us that the political center is dead, so don’t bother making persuasive arguments to swing voters. Just get your base out, and may the most “energized” team win. The 2018 midterm elections, however, showed that the center’s demise has been greatly exaggerated.

The big story was the revolt of suburban voters, led by white, college-educated women, against President Trump’s polarizing populism. Their defection helped Democrats win the popular vote (again), score their biggest gains in the House of Representatives since 1974 and add a slew of new governors.

A national poll by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) and Expedition Strategies taken on the eve of the midterm provides further evidence that America’s pragmatic center is resilient and bouncing back after two years of Trump’s bizarre presidency. It suggests that our democracy’s firewalls against demagoguery and extremism are still intact and that Trump’s 2016 win may be an aberration, a detour rather than a fundamental realignment of U.S. politics.

In fact, our survey illuminates a new political landscape that is favorable to Democrats heading into the 2020 presidential election cycle. It found that 48 percent of voters identified as Democrats or as independents who lean Democratic, while 39 percent said they were Republicans or lean Republican (the remaining 13 percent were true independents with no allegiance to either party).

Far from being an extinct political species, moderates matter more than ever. Strong partisans of either stripe were a minority in our poll — a potential sign that the nation may have hit “peak polarization” and is now on its way to a more rational equilibrium. A plurality of our respondents — 44 percent — called themselves “moderate,” versus 24 percent liberal and 32 percent conservative. Independents are overwhelming moderate (62 percent), potentially exceptionally important as we look ahead to 2020...."

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...ically-extinct

-----
"Progressives' plan for victory just took a gut-punch. Now what do they do?"

The Left has been eager to show it can build a winning coalition for 2020 and beyond. But that didn't happen in the midterms.

Progressives were hoping Tuesday's elections would finally give them definitive proof that Democrats can run and win on unapologetically liberal issues in swing districts and states.

That didn't happen.

Despite a good night for congressional Democrats overall, nearly all of national progressive groups' star candidates fell short in their contests in red or purple districts and states, potentially slowing the momentum the emboldened left had enjoyed since Hillary Clinton's loss two years ago.

"Progressives have to really do some hard thinking about the shape of the movement looking at 2020 and beyond," said progressive strategist Jonathan Tasini, adding that while the left had successes in some local races, they struggled in statewide contests. "The failure, for example, of the Ben Jealous campaign in a very Democratic state says both that sticking a simple 'progressive' branding on a candidate's campaign may sustain a small cult, but that isn't enough to win enough elections."

Jealous, a former president of the NAACP who championed single-payer health care, never really gained traction against Maryland Republican Gov. Larry Hogan. Other losing progressives included congressional hopefuls like Randy "Ironstache" Bryce, who ran for the Wisconsin seat being vacated by retiring House Speaker Paul Ryan, and both progressive insurgents who won upset victories in primaries earlier this year against Democratic establishment-backed candidates, Kara Eastman in Nebraska and Dana Balter in New York.

And Elizabeth Warren protege Katie Porter, a progressive who came out on top in a crowded primary in southern California, is trailing in a too-close-to-call House race, while some candidates who beat progressive-backed candidates in Democratic primaries in places like Kansas and Texas won their races.

Sean McElwee, the progressive activist who popularized the call to "abolish ICE," acknowledged that Democrats' biggest successes this cycle came in primaries in safe blue seats, where rising stars like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York and Ayanna Pressley in Massachusetts ousted longtime Democratic incumbents and cruised to victories Tuesday..."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ele...hat-do-n933771

[jetengine]

I compared individual odds.

About 2.6 million served in Vietnam, so a high casualty rate is a significant percentage.
.

Irrelevant. 200,000+ Homicides (not suicides, injuries etc just explicitly murders) via gun since 2000.

Vietnam had 58,000 over 20 years
Korea had 36,000 over 3 years
Both Iraqs had 5000 together over a space of 8 years

This is without me going over the smaller wars and peace keeping stuff.

WW2 had over 400,000 over a space of 6 years.

Can you understand how utterly ridiculous it is ? In the span of over 30 years of serious warfare your barely hitting half of twenty years of civillian life. Said twenty years being half of the bloodiest war mans currently fought.

[zinderel]

Punitive justice also makes sure there are less incentives to commit crime.

One can support the death penalty and other forms of punitive justice without being against restorative justice in all cases. If a career criminal already on trial for murder orders a hit on two witnesses and has two bystanders killed, we can't blame events and circumstances for provoking the killing.

Except that punitive Justice doesn't ACTUALLY do anything to deter crime. States with the death penalty, which later did away with it, found that crime numbers barely fluctuated.

https://www.amnestyusa.org/a-clear-s...oes-not-deter/

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-a...-death-penalty

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ter-criminals/

The only people who still believe that the death penalty deters criminals are people who just like watching someone die. Period.

[zinderel]

I was there in 2016 too. I can tell you first hand. Hillary supporters are a toxic group that did every underhanded thing they could to smear and label Bernie supporters because it suited their interest. You weren't the only person that was alive and politically active less than 3 years ago

I was a Bernie supporter up until it became clear that Hillary was getting the nomination. Even then, while I raged at the dirty tricks the DNC under Wasserman-Schultz pulled and I believed Bernie would have been better, I supported Hillary, because the ONLY other option was a protofascist lunatic. Johnson and Stein were jokes with absolutely no chance, and thus, were a wasted vote. Too many Bernie fans I knew shifted their vote to those two black holes in protest. And some switched to Trump as protest, not believing he was as bad as we all knew he was.

"At least he won't get us into war with Russia, like Hillary will!"
"But her emails!"
"She had a stroke, and that's scary, I don't want a sick leader!"
"She stole the election from Bernie, so Imma make sure she doesn't win the presidency!"

These are actual statements from actual Bernie supporters. I am over Bernie, and I am WAY over his supporters. He is too old, too myopic, problematic on race issues, and his supporters are entirely too cultish for my liking.

But on the off chance he is the democratic nominee for president, I will support him with my vote, because I am not a child prone to temper tantrums. So I'm going to ask you a simple yes/no question. I want a yes or no answer, not verbal diarrhea.

Will you support the not-Trump nominee (the serious one, not whoever 2020 Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are...) in the election if Bernie does not get the nomination? Yes or no?

[Gray Lensman]

Except that punitive Justice doesn't ACTUALLY do anything to deter crime. States with the death penalty, which later did away with it, found that crime numbers barely fluctuated.

https://www.amnestyusa.org/a-clear-s...oes-not-deter/

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-a...-death-penalty

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ter-criminals/

The only people who still believe that the death penalty deters criminals are people who just like watching someone die. Period.

I still support the death penalty in very limited cases.

Serial killers, people who can arrange deaths on the outside of prisons while they are still in one, and people who kill/order the deaths of witnesses/judges/jurors for their crimes and trials. But I don't consider those cases to be punitive justice so much as being the only way to truly protect society from them. Everyone else can just go away for life if need be - it costs less for the taxpayer and you can try to make it right if things go wrong. The John Oliver segment on the Death Penalty should be required viewing for anyone - one of the DA's who still pursues it had a little mockup electric chair on his desk with pictures of people who had been sent to it by him. And every face they could identify from the film was later exonerated.