All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Malvolio]

On this date in 2014, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” published a profile on Christine O’Donnell, the former U.S. Senate candidate from Delaware who assured us all that SHE WAS NOT A WITCH. As if that isn’t enough of an explanation of her wackiness, we’ll remind everyone that she also seemed to be unable to explain any amendments of the Constitution after the Second, and her understanding of the First Amendment seemed to indicate she didn’t grasp that it also included a separation of church and state. The fact that she was anti-masturbation, and chalked up several campaign finance investigations added to her wide swath of dumbassery. She was, quite possibly, the most embarrassing candidate for Senate the Republicans have mustered in the past decade, and that’s saying something.

In 2015, 2016, 2017, as well as 2018, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” published profiles of the now former U.S. House Representative from North Carolina’s 9th District, Robert Pittenger, who first won election in 2012, and has gone on to be one of the worst commenters on LGBTQ rights in Congress. In September of 2014, Pittenger discussed ENDA, and compared businesses having the ability to fire workers for their sexual orientation to also having the freedom to establish bans on smoking in the workplace. A month later, Pittenger was fretting over the threat of Ebola and calling for a travel ban to Africa (which experts only said would help spread the disease). In 2016, Pittinger discussed protesters in Charlotte upset about the police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, and dismissed them by saying they just "hate white people because white people are successful and they're not", which is a nice blended cocktail of racism and insensitivity. In February of 2015, Pittenger also teased some Godwin’s Law potential when he gave his opinion on negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program, comparing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Winston Churchill, and President Obama to Neville Chamberlain. Within a few more months, he went full-on Godwin’s Law, and declared Iran to be “Hitler with nuclera arms”, which is amazing because partly in thanks to a nuclear treaty that Pittinger himself opposed, Iran wasn’t planning on having any. At a July 2015 prayer rally featuring such CSGOPOTD luminaries as Louis Gohmert, Dave Daubenmire, Trent Franks, and E.W. Jackson, Pittenger declared that his “primary mission in Congress is to be an Emissary of Christ”, which probably means he’s not too keen on that whole separation of church and state thing we’ve got. Other than that, Pittenger has had a conservative record that is one of the hardest to the right in all of Congress, including a vote for the 2013 Government Shutdown, attempts to ban abortion at 20 weeks without rape or incest exceptions, and an attempt at defunding Planned Parenthood that saw him take to the floor of the house to claim they profit from the “sale of little baby body parts”. Which were the key words that are believed to have served as a stochastic terror trigger to make Robert Lewis Dear snap and shoot up a Planned Parenthood clinic few months later. In his final term in Congress, Pittenger straight-up lied about the GOP’s new healthcare plans that would allow insurance companies to refuse to cover pre-existing conditions at the state level, justifying that because “People can go to the state that they want to live in. States have all kinds of different policies and there are disparities among states for many things: driving restrictions, alcohol, whatever. We’re putting choices back in the hands of the states.” See? It’s easy… just pack up and move to whatever state is left to provide you with good healthcare. He also praised Donald Trump and derided the media, even only days after Donald Trump, Jr. posted proof he colluded with Russians on Twitter, writing “It’s “just another story in the media’s neurotic, weekly tabloid obsession of Trump-Russian collusion.” Robert Pittenger, however, will no longer darken the doors of Congress, ironically being beaten in a tainted election by fellow Republican Mark Harris. As such, we’re going to retire his profile at this time, and go ahead and take a look at a different kooky Republican today instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 766-40, since this was established in July 2014.)


Stacey Dash

Welcome to the 766th original “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” profile, where today we’ll be discussing Stacey Dash, who you may remember as “that actress who was the best friend in the movie Clueless”, a minor bit of fame which Dash used to get on Fox News as their main guest pundit to kick the discussion to when they want to have a discussion on race and have someone willing to sell out their own.

And, we’re lucky enough to not have to watch every minute of her appearances as a pundit, but Media Matters did a great job of summing them up after Dash announced her intention to run for Congress in 2018:

• Dash said that the Democratic Party has a “plantation mentality” while on Hannity in 2014. In 2016, she repeated the same ludicrous statement on The O'Reilly Factor nearly two years later, adding that this “mentality” kept African-Americans “on entitlements.”
• In 2014, Stacey Dash also that government assistance is the “Democratic Party’s new version of slavery.”
• In 2015, Dash, without any evidence or logic to why…attributed a rise in divorce rates to women not knowing “how to take care of their men.”
• In 2015, while discussing a rise in sexual assault on college campuses, Dash intimated that some sexual assaults are the result of “bad girls … who like to be naughty.”
• During a 2015 discussion about the gender pay-gap in Hollywood, Dash blamed the women, saying they needed to “be better negotiators.” In a separate segment, she said actresses facing pay discrimination should “be grateful” for opportunities to star alongside famous men.
• In 2015, Dash was briefly suspended from Fox News after she suggested that President Barack Obama didn’t “give a ****” about terrorism.
• In 2016, when #OscarsSoWhite was trending on Twitter, Dash hopped onto Fox News to respond to that that “either we want to have segregation or integration” and claiming that “there is no need” for the NAACP or BET Awards. She also said that “there shouldn’t be a black history month” because there isn’t a white history month. Only hours later, she repeated this statement on another show.

So as we said, Stacey Dash used her Fox News fame to run for U.S. House of Representatives in California’s 44th Congressional District. Even with that high profile, it is a very blue district, and most predicted she was only doing it to be a troll and stay relevant for another few years. That seems accurate, because Dash actually finished fourth in the primary, not even coming close to qualifying for the general election with only 7% of the vote. To put that in even more perspective, Jazmina Saavedra, who we profiled earlier this month, got 10% of the vote.

We’ll just say that Stacey Dash’s fifteen minutes of fame should have run out at least a decade ago. And that she’s probably not going to be invited to a Clueless reunion, in spite of embodying the title more than anyone should have any right to be.

I wonder if that 2015 suspension from FOX News was because of the actual substance of her statement, or because she uttered the word, "****."

BTW, does she really have anywhere else to go? I mean, the only other place I've seen her since the Clueless TV series was one of the Sharknado sequels.

[williamtheday]

Trump might toss Pence out for his reelection campaign. Graham might be angling for that and a run of his own in 2024, especially if Trump and McQuisling manage to complete their desired transformation of the American political system into a competitive autocracy.

I think it was The Daily Beast that speculated Trump will dump Pence and have Ivanka as his running mate. If he's reelected, he might leave office pleading ill health. Ivanka becomes president and if daddy faces charges, she'll pardon him and the country still belongs to the Trumps. Sounds highly unlikely, but who knows?

[Gray Lensman]

I think it was The Daily Beast that speculated Trump will dump Pence and have Ivanka as his running mate. If he's reelected, he might leave office pleading ill health. Ivanka becomes president and if daddy faces charges, she'll pardon him and the country still belongs to the Trumps. Sounds highly unlikely, but who knows?

If Ivanka is anything at all like her dad she'll toss him under the bus for some good will.

[Jack Dracula]

Think. In the post - 9/11 days, there was a great deal of unity for a period of time and many people, myself included, felt you had to support the President. Everyone feared another attack was being planned. Just about everyone went along with the story about the WMDs

I recall there was a lot of shaming going on as well.

I wonder if that 2015 suspension from FOX News was because of the actual substance of her statement, or because she uttered the word, "****."

BTW, does she really have anywhere else to go? I mean, the only other place I've seen her since the Clueless TV series was one of the Sharknado sequels.

The NRA may be looking for a new spokes-person. Someone who'll work cheap.

[Jack Dracula]

An interesting theory, and you could be right, even though I cling to the belief the only way Trump leaves the White House, regardless of he loses is if he's dragged out kicking and screaming by the Secret Service. No way he declines re-election, or gives up the presidency, and all the power that comes with it without one hell of a fight.

If he were an actual politician that might be the case. I think he'd rather put some distance between himself and the level of accountability and scrutiny that goes with being the POTUS. Retire to Mar-a-lago, play golf, creep on women and sell his tweeting to the highest bidder. His time in the White House will open doors that would've stayed closed before and he can capitalize on whatever clout he may retain after leaving office.

[Tami]

If he were an actual politician that might be the case. I think he'd rather put some distance between himself and the level of accountability and scrutiny that goes with being the POTUS. Retire to Mar-a-lago, play golf, creep on women and sell his tweeting to the highest bidder. His time in the White House will open doors that would've stayed closed before and he can capitalize on whatever clout he may retain after leaving office.

Only there is a good chance that, after leaving office, he'd be in a ton of legal trouble. if not at the Federal leave, then at the state level.

[Jack Dracula]

Only there is a good chance that, after leaving office, he'd be in a ton of legal trouble. if not at the Federal leave, then at the state level.

One can hope. I'd love to see him perp-walked down some courthouse steps in handcuffs.

[numberthirty]

Is Israel trying to take some of the heat off of Trump?

- https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...py-rafi-peretz

Israelis call for education minister to resign over gay conversion remarks

Hundreds protest in Tel Aviv after Rafi Peretz says gay conversion ‘therapy’ works

[Mister Mets]

No -- you've seen statistics that prove that Obama deported more immigrants than Trump and written evidence that proves Trump is breaking the law with his policies while his administration denies children the right to soap, towels, and medical care.

I also recall posting an article that showed that immigration processing speed had been increased under Obama and halved under Trump -- after you suggested it should be increased -- so stop lying about the "ad hominem" attacks when you just choose to avoid acknowledging facts when they are presented to you or try to spin them as you see fit.

In return, all you've offered is an article by a writer who isn't even a Democratic congressperson nor has any power over actual legislature -- just some guy whose opinion you expect to override the actual deeds of both parties while in power.

Just because you selectively ignore facts don't mean they don't exist and just because you refuse to admit the truth doesn't make it any less true.

One thing is for certain though -- you are definitely from the party of Trump.

-----
"Anatomy of a lie: where Trump’s fictitious “Open Borders Bill” comes from"

"Lesser politicians merely exaggerate or spread fear about what the opposing party would do if they took power in Congress. President Donald Trump is inventing specific pieces of legislation.

Trump’s now rallying supporters by warning them that if Democrats take back the Senate, they’ll pass a bill written by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) called the “Open Borders Bill.”

No such bill actually exists.

Here’s what Trump told a rally audience in Topeka, Kansas, on Saturday:

Today’s Democrats have embraced radical socialism and open borders. If you don’t have borders, you don’t have a country, folks, you don’t have a country. Every single Democrat in the US Senate has signed up for the Open Borders — and it’s a bill! It’s called the Open Borders Bill! What’s going on? And it’s written by — guess who — Dianne Feinstein.

Here is the part of Trump’s riff about Democrats that is correct: There is, in fact, a bill that Feinstein has written that every Democrat in the Senate has signed on to.

It is, of course, not called the Open Borders Bill, because it’s not actually about opening the borders at all. It’s called the Keep Families Together Act; it was written in June, during the height of the family separation crisis at the US-Mexico border, to stop the administration’s “zero tolerance” policy of criminally prosecuting parents who crossed into the US illegally and sending their children into the care of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Feinstein’s bill — probably by mistake — would have prevented parents from being arrested for serious crimes by the FBI, not just from getting separated at the border. But the good-faith critiques of the bill snowballed into an assertion on the right that Democrats were going to open the borders — and, furthermore, that that was the point..."

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/8/179514...stein-democrat

I've never claimed that Democrats have the courage to be open about support for unpopular views on immigration. My comments have been inspired by their consistent refusal to express limiting principles, or any upper limit on immigration.

I got exposed to the idea from comments in an Ezra Klein podcast interview that I quoted last year.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...le#post4101370

In addition to a failure to articulate a limiting principle problem, you can add consistent opposition to a border wall, consistent pushes for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and consistent opposition to most deportations of undocumented immigrants.

A problem with focusing on introduced legislation is that it rewards politicians for hiding their views. It also neglects executive actions, like Obama's policy of curbing deportations from the interior states.

[Spike-X]

If we're going to grant asylum for people anywhere in the world who want decent jobs, that's likely to result in massive increases of something outside of our typical immigration system.

I didn't just say "a decent job".

[aja_christopher]

I've never claimed that Democrats have the courage to be open about support for unpopular views on immigration. My comments have been inspired by their consistent refusal to express limiting principles, or any upper limit on immigration.

Your comments are informed by your conservative biases -- nothing more, nothing less. You ignore any facts that counter said bias -- such as actual Democratic leadership and legislation -- and instead focus on finding articles that support your preconceptions about the "left". Whether you don't see that or are just pretending not to see it is debatable, but it's obvious to anyone who sees you accusing others of making "ad hominem" attacks when they are providing actual statistics and documentation that disproves your rhetoric.

You spin Obama's actual record on immigration and deportation as you see fit and focus instead on "limiting principles" and "open borders" while ignoring your own party's illegal activities, family separation policies, and abuse of children at the border -- it's a transparently poor attempt to defend the indefensible at best.

It basically comes down to: "I can't comment on the criminal and immoral behavior of the Republicans and their cruelty towards immigrants because I think the Democrats would be worse on immigration even though I have no factual evidence to prove it -- in fact, though all evidence shows the opposite to be true, I'd rather make assumptions about the Democrats based on my preconceived biases than accept the data at face value."

[Robotman]

Only there is a good chance that, after leaving office, he'd be in a ton of legal trouble. if not at the Federal leave, then at the state level.

That’s the main reason why a lot of people, myself included, think that he’ll do absolutely everything in his power to stay in office for the rest of his life.

I wonder how far the republicans would be willing to go with Trump. If he tries to cancel the 2020 election would they support that?

[JCAll]

I've never claimed that Democrats have the courage to be open about support for unpopular views on immigration. My comments have been inspired by their consistent refusal to express limiting principles, or any upper limit on immigration.

I got exposed to the idea from comments in an Ezra Klein podcast interview that I quoted last year.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...le#post4101370

In addition to a failure to articulate a limiting principle problem, you can add consistent opposition to a border wall, consistent pushes for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and consistent opposition to most deportations of undocumented immigrants.

A problem with focusing on introduced legislation is that it rewards politicians for hiding their views. It also neglects executive actions, like Obama's policy of curbing deportations from the interior states.

This is what Democrats believe, they'll just never admit it; you know it's true, and nothing anyone says will ever convince you otherwise. There's no arguing with that. It just completely shuts down the discussion.

[Tendrin]

It just completely shuts down the discussion.

Which is the point, of course.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

That’s the main reason why a lot of people, myself included, think that he’ll do absolutely everything in his power to stay in office for the rest of his life.

I wonder how far the republicans would be willing to go with Trump. If he tries to cancel the 2020 election would they support that?

I’ve previously said that the ONE thing Trump fears more than anything on this planet, perhaps more than even losing his wealth is losing his freedom, and, judging from what came out in the Mueller Report, prison would all but be a certainty if he’s taken to court, and the presidency is the only thing potentially keeping him from the big house. As for the question of if Republicans would support Trump if he tried to cancel next year’s election, yeah, I think they would. The GOP as a whole is too far gone to be redeemed, drunk on power, greed, immortality, hate, the whole nine ugly and insane yards, so why not set fire to the Constitution and flush democracy as we know it down the toilet? Their shameful silence after Trump’s racist tweets yesterday showed Republicans have fully cast their lot with the Orange Menace and will die with him, and take the country to hell with them.