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

[worstblogever]

After three years as President Idiot, Trump has given the Democrats plenty of ammunition to draw from.
I'm hoping I get to see him go up against Kamala Harris and try belittling her. She'd gut him.

I would pay ALL the dollars to see that debate.

[Mister Mets]

Repartations should not be done in a blanket payment to people because given human nature a majority will just blow it on a vacation or something frivolous and be no better off in a few months than they were before and then will demand more. I'm not indicting blacks, I'm literally saying this would happen to any group because people in general are horrible with money.

Repartations should be done in ways that actually improve black lives. Invest in black neighborhoods. Create programs to help black children go to college or trade schools. Do things that will actually help long term rather than a short term cash flow. Especially since if you do the one time cash payment it will just lead to many saying we did something and then feeling nothing else needs done.

So, who is going to be in charge of the money with the investments approach? How do you avoid various third rails (IE- the people who think trade school is demeaning and everyone should get a Bachelors.)

[Tendrin]

Uh... WBE? Stringer managed to be even grosser.

Their discussion can be overheard in a video, which Hamilton recorded as she live-streamed the event on Facebook.

In the video, Stringer and Hamilton discuss what issue he should ask the speaker about, and she suggests Stringer ask about child trafficking.

He responds by saying that he doesn't think sex trafficking is a concern and said, "I don't like to demonize it."

Stringer also said while he doesn't think there is much child sex trafficking there are "a lot of 15-year-old prostitutes." He laughed after making that comment. The 1980s charges included accusations that Stringer paid for sex with one child who was 15 for part of the time.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ts/3357769002/

[worstblogever]

Here's the thing: The rest of the Democrats said 'no' to Fox. And they did so as a party, and in unison, with intent.

Bernie doing this is just Bernie being Bernie, giving both middle fingers to the rest of the party, as usual.

In the end, all Bernie cares about is himself, and getting himself in front of a camera until he feels like it won't help anyone but himself.

[Malvolio]

I would disagree just because I don’t think a guy who isn’t informed enough to know where his dad was born, that wind mills don’t cause cancer, or how to pronounce “origins” correctly is the kind of candidate that would have access to these personal flaws without someone else highlighting them first.

You're assuming that Trump will be the only one attacking the eventual Democratic nominee. That nominee will be attacked from numerous FOX News personalities, right wing radio hosts, and just random trolls on Twitter. We can't be afraid to highlight a candidate's flaws just to keep the opposition in the dark about those flaws. They have people whose only job is to dig up dirt on Democratic candidates. They're going to find those flaws no matter how hard we try to hide them.

[Malvolio]

Some people like to worship false idols.

Speaking of, Bernie is actually so old he was there in the story in the Book of Genesis when they were worshiping the Golden Calf.

Sorry to correct you, WBE, but the story of the Golden Calf was in the Book of Exodus, not Genesis.

[Tendrin]

Some people like to worship false idols.

Speaking of, Bernie is actually so old he was there in the story in the Book of Genesis when they were worshiping the Golden Calf.

That's ultimately a problem for me. Bernie's a fairly moderate social democrat by global standards. This is okay. This country direly needs a social-democratic model and institutions. If he's the nominee, I'll work my ass off to get him to the white house because I'm not a hypocrite.

But there's a problematic centering of Bernie himself in all of this that worries me. A lot. His approach screams of old new-deal politics that center the white working class, and while surround himself with young POCs will help, I'm not sure that those hires are good ones if they're the sorts to accuse John Lewis of being willing to murder his pets for the sake of the DNC. Bernie himself has allowed the idea of 'Bernie', it feels, to overtake the need to build something that can last beyond him. That work will fall on others (Frankly, AOC is doing way better at this than Bernie is) and I am not sure how much of that support for Bernie will evaporate once there's not a 'Bernie' to rally around anymore.

If you find a person becoming central to your politics, it's time to stop.

[worstblogever]

Sorry to correct you, WBE, but the story of the Golden Calf was in the Book of Exodus, not Genesis.

Ah, damn. Got my Bibble all confuzzled there for a sec.

[worstblogever]

That's ultimately a problem for me. Bernie's a fairly moderate social democrat by global standards. This is okay. This country direly needs a social-democratic model and institutions. If he's the nominee, I'll work my ass off to get him to the white house because I'm not a hypocrite.

But there's a problematic centering of Bernie himself in all of this that worries me. A lot. His approach screams of old new-deal politics that center the white working class, and while surround himself with young POCs will help, I'm not sure that those hires are good ones if they're the sorts to accuse John Lewis of being willing to murder his pets for the sake of the DNC.

I don't understand why there's the need for anyone who likes Bernie to tear down anyone who isn't him. I've seen Berners take shots at Liz Warren, Beto, AOC, Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, etc. etc.

Every one of them are younger and more charismatic than Bernie, and are the future. But they're so hell bent on Bernie that they'll destroy every Democrat that's an actual Democrat for not being him. And weakening the overall party. Then, they'll disconnect from those attacks, and wonder why people don't like Bernie.

We like him just fine. He's still flawed. His greatest one is his goddamned fan club.

[numberthirty]

I don't understand why there's the need for anyone who likes Bernie to tear down anyone who isn't him. I've seen Berners take shots at Liz Warren, Beto, AOC, Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, etc. etc.

Every one of them are younger and more charismatic than Bernie, and are the future. But they're so hell bent on Bernie that they'll destroy every Democrat that's an actual Democrat for not being him. And weakening the overall party. Then, they'll disconnect from those attacks, and wonder why people don't like Bernie.

We like him just fine. He's still flawed. His greatest one is his goddamned fan club.

Since this will actually be about "News"/"Politics"...

Harris used a technicality to keep an innocent man in jail for years after a Federal Judge ordered his release.

It's got nothing to do with not being Sanders.

I can't see why folks don't see the need to say "There Is No Reason To Move Someone Who Would Knowingly Work To Keep An Innocent Man In Jail When His Release Has Been Ordered."

For so much as a single day. Never mind years.

I cannot understand why anyone would not say "Let's Do Whatever We Can To Avoid Moving Someone Like That Up The Ladder."

[Tendrin]

Kamala should have to address these things and, hopefully, will be called on to do so... if the media weren't so busy asking if she's 'too likable or not likable enough', but also 'case in point'.

[numberthirty]

Kamala should have to address these things and, hopefully, will be called on to do so... if the media weren't so busy asking if she's 'too likable or not likable enough', but also 'case in point'.

Unless someone can prove that it never happened, there is nothing to address.

It's like asking someone for a good excuse for having just tossed a puppy out into traffic. There is no excuse for having done so.

We are talking about a situation where no even remotely competent prosecutor should have done what she did.

A cop came forward to testify for the guy she kept in jail because the guy was being railroaded. Think about that for a minute.

[Tendrin]

Unless someone can prove that it never happened, there is nothing to address.

It's like asking someone for a good excuse for having just tossed a puppy out into traffic. There is no excuse for having done so.

We are talking about a situation where no even remotely competent prosecutor should have done what she did.

A cop came forward to testify for the guy she kept in jail because the guy was being railroaded. Think about that for a minute.

Well, gosh. Then you have nothing to fear from this being fully addressed, now, do you? But, hey. 'Case in Point, Part 2'. We still don't know, I should add, how much of a role she played in any of these decisions personally. The district attorney's office is a big place, and while the buck stops with her, there are people who were there before her who are now there after her. The real issue in American jurisprudence is the instutionalism of some of these policies that she failed to adequately address.

The buck stops with her, sure, but it's worth knowing what she actually decided, and what she did not.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I don't really care about Bernie being criticized. There are legitimate things you can critcize him on. I generally find in this thread he gets criticized for very self serving nit picks to make him look bad that people generally get upset if you push them down the logical path of what their criticisms mean. For instance I see a lot of people in this thread pull the "he's not really a Democrat line" frequently. Which is true, it ignores a lot of context like how he has always caucased with them and all the benefits they get from him. However, it's very obviously a way to allude to a line of thinking along the lines of, "he's not really a Democrat, he shouldn't even be running as their candidate". Which sure that's somewhat of a thought that you can consider. But if you bring up that if he doesn't run as a Democrat, because he's not one, then he should be free to run as an independent and that you should accept the consequences of that, then people get upset. And it's difficult to think they aren't getting upset because you told them that the very self serving criticism led to another option instead of just letting them have their cake and eat it to0. It's very clear that type of criticism is just kinda of bs to find a way to dismiss him and get him out of the way. You just see very quickly who has the integrity to stand by that belief when you push them on it.

That's not the only one either. Racial politics isn't a primary part of Bernie's platform. A lot of people in this thread use that to make the case that he's bad for minorities or that he has no credibility with issues that advance minority interests. I think it's definitley fair to say he could address it more. I don't think it's fair to get a lot of the implied "Bernie's bad for minority" hottakes you see around here. Most of his policies again would have a disproportionate impact on minorities. Or he's getting attacked for not supporting reparations which are just quite frankly an eternally unpopular policy that likely won't happen that even candidates giving them lip service aren't actually coming out and supporting them in the traditonal sense. Also people are quick to dismiss his support of the civil rights movement as not being meaningful because it doesn't gel with that narrative.

Meanwhile Beto's been in this race for two weeks now and doesn't have any policy positions laid out, doesn't have the best voting record, and has done nothing but talk in platitude since his announcement, but this thread gets upset if he's critcizied for that and tries to misrepresent it as "oh you guys just think he threatens Bernie". It all just rings very hollow and disengenous. Like quite frankly, this thread is very defensive of nearly every Democrat except Bernie and has serious issues with critcism for them. If Bernie had Beto's record, got supported by some of the people Beto supported, and hadn't announced a single policy position yet this thread would be open season. If Bernie had some of the corporate ties of Gillibrand and Booker, I doubt it would be something you wouldn't see certain characters around here bringing up every two pages or so.

And I'll say again, I was gone for a few days, and went out of my way to not bring up Bernie in this thread for quite awhile. Taz wasn't here. 30 was really the only one around. Same people still couldn't help themselves when it came to going at him. Same people were posting articles critcizing him. Just to be honest, the same tenor of discourse on him existed in this thread, there just wasn't one side pushing back on it. So it's hard to take it at face value when you say the same level of scrutiny being applied to Bernie is the problem. Other polticians have been defended for more substantive criticism besides the vague ones we see time and again with him.

I've said multiple times in this thread, I prefer Warren get the nom because I'd get the policies of Bernie, but the establishment won't undermine her and there isn't the heated resentment he has from those who need some boogeyman to blame for the loss in 2016 team.

And then when all else fails you can have wbe chime in that all Bernie supporters think he's a god or something because it's an easy way to dismiss people.

[numberthirty]

Well, gosh. Then you have nothing to fear from this being fully addressed, now, do you? But, hey. 'Case in Point, Part 2'.

Considering the way that the media has covered it thus far?

Yeah, I'd say I do.

I'm probably never going to be on the same page as most mainstream Democrats.

That said, I don't think "Could We Just Set Aside Handing The Person That Kept An Innocent Man In Jail The Nomination?" is that big of an ask.

While I'm pretty sure that Beto is an accident waiting to happen, I could still probably vote for him.

All I'm saying is that I don't wanna have to think about voting for Gabbard or Harris.