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

[Tendrin]

Frankly speaking, this is why she is my favorite candidate in the race. A lot of her proposals are tax-based so she can use the budgetary rule in the Senate to push a lot of these through with 51 votes. That seems to me to be realistic. I also think making education her signature issue out of the gate is gonna fundamentally improve her image on the debate stage.

Agreed. I like Kamala, generally, and think she's a really strong contender.

I know there are questions about her record as a prosecutor. I think she should answer those, but, at the same time, I don’t think they can quite be weaponized in the general like they were in the primary. We’ve had long discussions on this thread about Harris’ office sticking to a California conviction upon appeal. (As I stated, that is the job of the Attorney General’s office—to defend the policies and convictions by the state. Harris also had already stood up against a legally passed proposition against gay marriage and that could’ve cost her her career.) But, the truth is, that Trump has pushed for putting children in cages and making them appear before immigration judges on their lonesome. The moral depravity of that action is clear.

We agree here too. While there are legit issues (her truant policy, for example or her handling of Mnuchin's case based on what I understand), there's no such thing as smeone who's gonna get it right every time. She can either address these issues sufficiently or not and none of these things are enough to disqualify her against Trump.

Plus, I don’t think she’ll have to deal with legitimate criticism of her being an “open borders” “socialist”. I think a lot of moderates are still frightened by that language, even if the word “democratic” is in front of it. Her immigration reform plans seem measured and also want to provide for more security along the border.

There are also aren't videos of her praising dictators. :P

Overall, out of the leading candidates, I think she’d be the strongest one in the general election while still being left of where Obama was politically. And her policies seem to me to be the most realistic, broad-strokes policies that don’t require nuking the filibuster in the Senate, which can be harmful (as has been discussed).

Both her and Warren are being understimated at this time in favor of Whtie Guy Of The Week. It's typical.

[InformationGeek]

Speaking of awful, stupid people, the president!

Trump on George Washington, during a visit to Mount Vernon: “If he was smart, he would’ve put his name on it...You’ve got to put your name on stuff or no one remembers you.” https://t.co/DLU0LQlAqk

[Tendrin]

Speaking of awful, stupid people, the president!

Trump probably thinks Mount Vernon is named after Ernest P Worrel's camera shy friend. Y'know what I mean, Vern?

[PwrdOn]

Plus, I don’t think she’ll have to deal with legitimate criticism of her being an “open borders” “socialist”. I think a lot of moderates are still frightened by that language, even if the word “democratic” is in front of it. Her immigration reform plans seem measured and also want to provide for more security along the border.

The thing is, immigration will always be a losing issue for Democrats because everything they propose comes off as weak and half-assed when they try to have it both ways like this. Recent immigrants and their descendants make up a pretty sizable chunk of the Democratic base, and while in the past many of them were inclined to slam the door behind them and support restrictions against further immigration, these days we see more and more that a desire for fairness overrides self-interest for these voters, because they see potential entrants as akin to themselves and not just as competition. And it's getting harder for people to buy into this idea that becoming an American is a rare privilege that one must earn, when you see so many so-called "real Americans" acting like such entitled dickheads.

[Tendrin]

The thing is, immigration will always be a losing issue for Democrats because everything they propose comes off as weak and half-assed when they try to have it both ways like this. Recent immigrants and their descendants make up a pretty sizable chunk of the Democratic base, and while in the past many of them were inclined to slam the door behind them and support restrictions against further immigration, these days we see more and more that a desire for fairness overrides self-interest for these voters, because they see potential entrants as akin to themselves and not just as competition. And it's getting harder for people to buy into this idea that becoming an American is a rare privilege that one must earn, when you see so many so-called "real Americans" acting like such entitled dickheads.

I'm not sure I agree with this one. We've spent way too long catering to the far right on immigration to the point where we can't resolve the actual issues our immigration system faces. We talk about 'border security' and 'limits', but not about it taking twenty years to get a frigging green card in some cases from Mexico.

It's absurd, rooted in racism, and we can't talk about it because 'security' theatre is more important

[PwrdOn]

I'm not sure I agree with this one. We've spent way too long catering to the far right on immigration to the point where we can't resolve the actual issues our immigration system faces. We talk about 'border security' and 'limits', but not about it taking twenty years to get a frigging green card in some cases from Mexico.

It's absurd, rooted in racism, and we can't talk about it because 'security' theatre is more important

Reforming our immigration policy will first require white Americans to come to terms with the fact that their current economic condition is built off the exploitation of other countries, and that letting more immigrants in to share in this prosperity is the right thing to do, even if it means a severe drop in their own quality of life. This will eventually happen one way or another, but I'm skeptical of even self-identified progressives embracing this reality anytime soon.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Here's a good thread on policies backed by Kamala Harris:

https://twitter.com/blackwomenviews/...76713612050432

And that’s why Harris is in my top 3. She’s actually has legit policies she’s proposing and they are somewhat progressive and forward thinking. She also won’t be mistaken for a moderate Republican

[TheDarman]

Reforming our immigration policy will first require white Americans to come to terms with the fact that their current economic condition is built off the exploitation of other countries, and that letting more immigrants in to share in this prosperity is the right thing to do, even if it means a severe drop in their own quality of life. This will eventually happen one way or another, but I'm skeptical of even self-identified progressives embracing this reality anytime soon.

This gets to the heart of Bernie Sanders’ recent comments though, doesn’t it? Sanders makes the erroneous claim that allowing immigration at much higher levels will result in further impoverishment of people already here. I understand that he is an economic populist, which naturally makes him a nationalist as well, but here is Sanders making a nationalist claim rather than a strictly progressive one. For all the issues many progressives have, most of them can read social science literature. And there has never been, nor will there ever be, a circumstance where immigration has been tied to lowering wages unless employers, themselves, are taking advantage of immigrants to do work for less money than they have been able to pay unionized natural-born workers. In which case, you are blaming the victim of abuse for not getting a hard job that pays what it should. The real solution is to put in place labor standards that make it clear no one can be abused. That way, every individual is evaluated based on individual merit and not how little they can get away with being paid. The fact that Sanders subscribed to this rhetoric himself, though, does show we have a long way to go for even “far-left” individuals to accept human rights are human rights, no matter where they’re born.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Reforming our immigration policy will first require white Americans to come to terms with the fact that their current economic condition is built off the exploitation of other countries, and that letting more immigrants in to share in this prosperity is the right thing to do, even if it means a severe drop in their own quality of life. This will eventually happen one way or another, but I'm skeptical of even self-identified progressives embracing this reality anytime soon.

Well you certainly aren’t going to be able to sell that to voters that’s for sure.

[PwrdOn]

This gets to the heart of Bernie Sanders’ recent comments though, doesn’t it? Sanders makes the erroneous claim that allowing immigration at much higher levels will result in further impoverishment of people already here. I understand that he is an economic populist, which naturally makes him a nationalist as well, but here is Sanders making a nationalist claim rather than a strictly progressive one. For all the issues many progressives have, most of them can read social science literature. And there has never been, nor will there ever be, a circumstance where immigration has been tied to lowering wages unless employers, themselves, are taking advantage of immigrants to do work for less money than they have been able to pay unionized natural-born workers. In which case, you are blaming the victim of abuse for not getting a hard job that pays what it should. The real solution is to put in place labor standards that make it clear no one can be abused. That way, every individual is evaluated based on individual merit and not how little they can get away with being paid. The fact that Sanders subscribed to this rhetoric himself, though, does show we have a long way to go for even “far-left” individuals to accept human rights are human rights, no matter where they’re born.

If we're talking about a meritocracy though, then shouldn't we apply the same standards to native born citizens as to immigrants? I mean, there are literally billions of people more deserving than someone like Brett Kavanaugh of the resources and opportunities he had growing up, to be truly fair people like him would need to earn their citizenship in the same way that immigrants are forced to.

Well you certainly aren’t going to be able to sell that to voters that’s for sure.

I think most minority voters already understand this perfectly well even if we aren't so comfortable with it, just ask any second generation immigrant who has ever visited their "home" country and experienced first hand the life they would have had were it not for a couple of lucky events totally outside of their control. Obviously trying to educate white America on this will be damn near impossible.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

While Warren, Sanders and Harris appear to be frontrunners in the early going, I remain uncommitted to EVERYBODY until the debates and I get to listen to what ALL the candidates have to say. I'm not looking for purity, god knows that's a fool's errand, what I want, if not demand, is clarity from the candidates on their policies before I decide one way or the other.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

While Warren, Sanders and Harris appear to be frontrunners in the early going, I remain uncommitted to EVERYBODY until the debates and I get to listen to what ALL the candidates have to say. I'm not looking for purity, god knows that's a fool's errand, what I want, if not demand, is clarity from the candidates on their policies before I decide one way or the other.

When do you almost ever get policy from debates? It’s all just performance and style over substance. Mostly mudslinging. We have 3 candidates that actually have tangible policies written Dow that everyone in the country can look up, then you have Beto and Mayor Pete with absolutely nothing and dancing around policy every time you are asked.

Debates are how you get people like Donald Trump who have nothing going for them besides how to work a room.

Until they actually commit to policies it’s hard to imagine a debate changing much.

[ed2962]

Candance Owens is just a garbage person. From her transphobia to Islamphobia, we have her also comparing journalists to school shooters, taking pot shots at families of murder victims, engaging in conspiracy theories, saying black people should get over slavery, and so much more

She is awful. Never ever ever forget it.

The irony is that if she allowed herself to drop character, she probably could have added something substantive to yesterday's hearing. The fact is that she was the victim of racist harassment in the past ( and won a suit). As an internet star, she could have lent some insight into how social media spreads misinformation. But instead, she had to work her anti-identity politics scam while engaging in identity politics shtick. Of course, her fans are crowing about how she "owned" the Democratic Party.

[KOSLOX]

What are the betting odds that Candace Owens dances like Courtney Cox in Springsteen's "Dancing In The Dark" video?

[shooshoomanjoe]

Speaking of awful, stupid people, the president!

No one remember Washington because he didn't put his name on anything? Oh Lord.