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

[worstblogever]

The Working Families Party endorsed Elizabeth Warren for president.

Bernie Sanders supporters have made a response all-too-typical for them, and have begun making racist attacks against the WFP's leaders online.

Nina Turner is trying in vain to get them to cease, to her credit, but it's falling on deaf ears.

[Dalak]

I think that's pretty close to the definition of hypocrisy. Plenty of non-political people have done less offensive things than repeated use of blackface and been attacked much harder than this.

It shouldn't be about the politics. It should be about the racism and that invalidate the political affiliations.

I think it's simple: If they've done actual work to help the disadvantaged and minorities since their offense and they give a sincere apology I'm willing to accept it assuming they don't backslide. If they've done nothing to aid and everything to continue to marginalize and oppress them, then unless I see actual actions to back up their words (And mere donations don't count) their apology is just more empty words.

[Farealmer]

I get the sense from this story that if Trudeau wasn't a beloved figure on the left this would be going very differently for him. If we're going to try and cancel people and tear them down, ideology shouldn't protect them.

So far I don't like the way this is being met socially. It feels inconsistent and hypocritical. Personally, I think his apology is fine and we can move on. Few have enjoyed such leeway with their apologies of late though...

Because people rightly don't want another liberal nation getting their own Trump.

[Theleviathan]

I think it's simple: If they've done actual work to help the disadvantaged and minorities since their offense and they give a sincere apology I'm willing to accept it assuming they don't backslide. If they've done nothing to aid and everything to continue to marginalize and oppress them, then unless I see actual actions to back up their words (And mere donations don't count) their apology is just more empty words.

I think that's totally fair. That is not, however, the standard often applied viciously in many corners of the social media world. I have a problem when we make right-wing boogeymen come true. (Like: "they wouldn't do this if it was a democrat/liberal!")

[Farealmer]

I think that's totally fair. That is not, however, the standard often applied viciously in many corners of the social media world. I have a problem when we make right-wing boogeymen come true. (Like: "they wouldn't do this if it was a democrat/liberal!")

I've said before and i'll say again the right is not want for boogiemen regardless of what the left does. Eating their own to appease those that hate them regardless is not a smart practice.

[Mister Mets]

'Why should I clean up the litter in my garden when my neighbour wont"

It's more about why you should stop dumping litter into a river when your neighbor won't.

You're not seeing the immediate consequences of your actions.

When you ask that people provide better explanation of how Democrats in general want something other than Open Borders despite being shown detailed analyses involving the legislation and actual actions that have been taken which prove that is not the case, you don't have much credibility when you complain about loaded questions. BTW more Dems of influence are on record wanting Medicare for All (No Mandate Necessary) than for going back to repair the sabotaged ACA, so it's still irrelevant. Anyone who was keeping their Ins for that reason have dropped it by now, unless they are too uninformed/ignorant/stupid to do so.

That's a new topic to the chain of posts, but my views on borders are more about how Democrats don't seem to be addressing the most important question; what should our policy of legal immigration be? The main arguments are about how to control the border and how we should treat those who have come into the country illegally, but the central question is being sidestepped. As far as I can tell, there aren't prominent Democrats saying that they're happy with the status quo, so they're not expressing a preference for any policy when it comes to limits on legal immigration.

I do try to phrase the question in a way that allows people who understand the question differently to express contrary views.

The way I've asked it multiple times is have Democrats expressed any opinion on a limiting principle on legal immigration (an upper limit on the number of immigrants who should be allowed in)? If so, what is it? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that? The question can be answered without anyone having to challenge the premise.

You claim there was no policy brought forward and when presented with one (a bipartisan policy no less) you claim doubt that the Democrats would adhere to it. All this despite it being a bipartisan bill and despite the fact you have no supporting evidence to back your opinion.
You're arguing in bad faith here. It seems clear that you don't actually want the Democrats to give any sort of policy because that would mean you could no longer assign them partial blame for the current miserable clusterfuck being pepetrated at the border.
It's mass child abuse initiated by a Republican President, sanctioned by the Republican leadership and approved by the Republican electorate who stand by and say nothing. Your people can either do nothing and admit your approval of this abuse or you can stand up to your party leadership and tell them you don't support it and threaten to withdraw your support if they don't do something to stop it.

I do currently support the Democratic frontrunner for President.

I'd be willing to support the party if they offer a superior clearly articulated alternative. Unless you think that a policy President Warren would propose with a Democratic House and Senate would certainly include funding for the wall, the bipartisan legislation isn't exactly an articulation of what the party would do in power.

I think that's pretty close to the definition of hypocrisy. Plenty of non-political people have done less offensive things than repeated use of blackface and been attacked much harder than this.

It shouldn't be about the politics. It should be about the racism and that invalidate the political affiliations.

I agree that how we respond to these things should be based on the issue not the individual. Otherwise, it comes across as pretext to get an outcome by any means necessary.

I get that people might feel that Trudeau is different from American politicians because Canada has a different history of racial relations and cultural appropriation so they haven't been able to internalize arguments that Americans accepted decades ago, but how one responds to Trudeau wearing blackface for at least the third time twenty years ago should be the same as the way they would respond to Doug Ford getting caught doing the same thing.

[Tami]

Longtime GOP strategist explains why his party is getting crushed in the war of ideas

Republican strategist Stuart Stevens on Wednesday warned the GOP that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) might not be a pushover candidate against President Donald Trump in 2020.

Writing on Twitter, Stevens admitted that he had “no idea” if Warren would beat Trump next year, but he did say that “Trump and supporters are destroying [the] credibility of any center-right argument” thanks to Trump’s “corrupt and unstable” governance.

When one of Stevens’ followers said that Warren would not be able to fulfill her promises just by taxing the wealthy, he countered that this idea is still more popular than anything Republicans are championing.

“Taxing multi-millionaires is far more popular than a border wall,” he wrote. “Medicare for all is more popular than a border wall. Free trade is more popular than a trade war and somehow R’s have granted that advantage to D’s. There are no new conservative solutions, only victim shopping.”

Stevens concluded by summing up why his party is getting hammered in the war of ideas at the moment.

“[The] most powerful word in advertising is ‘new’ & R’s are failing to present new ideas in any credible, sustained effort,” he said. “Companies that sell old products lose market share and fail. R’s consistently misread country, from Nike to Charlottesville. It’s an analog party in digital world.”

[Tami]

‘The View’ Blows Up Over Meghan McCain’s Confusing Whistleblower Claim: ‘Don’t Scream at Me!’

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Things got heated yet again on The View when Meghan McCain and [insert sparring co-host du jour’s name] got into it, causing McCain to huff and pout.

Leading off Friday’s broadcast of ABC’s gabfest by discussing the revelations that the whistleblower's complaint against Trump involves Ukraine, McCain eventually derailed the conversation by trying to make some kind of point about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Referencing her contentious exchange with Assange’s girlfriend Pam Anderson earlier this month, the conservative co-host grumbled that there are liberals who were fine with Assange’s leaks but are “screaming bloody murder right now about this whistleblower.”

“I think all interference from a foreign country in our election, all of it is bad and should be condemned and you can’t play party politics with this, and there’s a lot of people on the left who are doing that with Julian Assange,” she exclaimed. “I’m mad there are people on the left that think that Julian Assange is OK.”

The rest of the panel, understandably, was confused over what exactly McCain was talking about or arguing, causing the former Fox News personality to grow more frustrated.

“You’re saying, Meghan, the people are against this whistleblower?” Sunny Hostin wondered, obviously seeking some clarity.

[Theleviathan]

I've said before and i'll say again the right is not want for boogiemen regardless of what the left does. Eating their own to appease those that hate them regardless is not a smart practice.

Yes, but it stops being a boogeyman if it starts being true. Plus, if your response to racism is dictated by the politics of the offender, then your outrage isn't really about the racism. Or it becomes little more than a tool for political expediency.

I tend to think that if it's racist it's racist and the response to it should be apolitical so as not to muddy the waters.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

‘The View’ Blows Up Over Meghan McCain’s Confusing Whistleblower Claim: ‘Don’t Scream at Me!’

She’s either a Trump Kool-Aid drinker or just plain deranged. One wonders why she’s even on that show, but I’m guessing the producers need her to be the villain of the group.

[Dalak]

It's more about why you should stop dumping litter into a river when your neighbor won't.

You're not seeing the immediate consequences of your actions.

This is a ridiculous philosophy, does your neighbor have to do the right thing for you to feel you have to? If that's the case - Do the right thing to inspire your neighbor. Otherwise it's deserving of "If everyone's jumping off a cliff would you do it too?".

That's a new topic to the chain of posts, but my views on borders are more about how Democrats don't seem to be addressing the most important question; what should our policy of legal immigration be? The main arguments are about how to control the border and how we should treat those who have come into the country illegally, but the central question is being sidestepped. As far as I can tell, there aren't prominent Democrats saying that they're happy with the status quo, so they're not expressing a preference for any policy when it comes to limits on legal immigration.

I do try to phrase the question in a way that allows people who understand the question differently to express contrary views.

The way I've asked it multiple times is have Democrats expressed any opinion on a limiting principle on legal immigration (an upper limit on the number of immigrants who should be allowed in)? If so, what is it? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that? The question can be answered without anyone having to challenge the premise.

Since you can't see it: What is loaded is you asking what people should infer from silence when you refuse to infer from direct action. Debating in bad faith is your assuming numbers are exaggerated before they've been compiled or you've seen how they were arrived at.

I agree that how we respond to these things should be based on the issue not the individual. Otherwise, it comes across as pretext to get an outcome by any means necessary.

I get that people might feel that Trudeau is different from American politicians because Canada has a different history of racial relations and cultural appropriation so they haven't been able to internalize arguments that Americans accepted decades ago, but how one responds to Trudeau wearing blackface for at least the third time twenty years ago should be the same as the way they would respond to Doug Ford getting caught doing the same thing.

I disagree, as the individual pulling said BS does matter to an extent. In addition to what I posted earlier you don't get on folks like Jerry Seinfeld for making jokes about Jewish Stereotypes or Chris Rock for making jokes about Black stereotypes. Minorities dressing in 'Whiteface' isn't the same as white idiots going around in Blackface or otherwise wallowing in racist stereotypes.

[numberthirty]

She’s either a Trump Kool-Aid drinker or just plain deranged. One wonders why she’s even on that show, but I’m guessing the producers need her to be the villain of the group.

While I've got absolutely no way of proving it, I get a pretty legit "WWF 1985" vibe out of that show.

The only thing that ever seemed even remotely real was that Bila lady actually being a huge Luke Perry fan.

[numberthirty]

Because people rightly don't want another liberal nation getting their own Trump.

Which one makes that more likely?

- Tripping over you own sneakers?

- Being even a little bit of a hypocrite about that you tripped over your own sneakers?

[Farealmer]

I tend to think that if it's racist it's racist and the response to it should be apolitical so as not to muddy the waters.

The waters are already about as muddy as they are going to get without open civil war at this point.

Which one makes that more likely?

- Tripping over you own sneakers?

- Being even a little bit of a hypocrite about that you tripped over your own sneakers?

Choice 3 - Not throwing a good man under a bus for a mistake. Your purity control has not helped a single thing except to give the right almost everything they wanted for the last 3 years.

[worstblogever]

Man, as much as Trudeau's catching hell for Blackface and Brownface ATM...

Did anyone see Trump's Cheeto-Dust mask in the Oval Office today when he tried to hand-wave away the whistleblower scandal? Good lord, someone rushed him through the makeup chair this morning. He looked like a reverse-palate of Pennywise.