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

[GindyPosts]

Rural health care is a travesty in this country and the Republicans aren't making it better. The ACA did try but the gutting of intended Medicaid expansion, which would've helped to prevent the closure of so many rural clinics and hospitals, has made it worse than ever.

The thing is; people are always happy about tearing stuff down 'cuz we like seeing **** get knocked down, but they don't like the idea of building things up, as it requires thinking, foresight, and understanding what may come. That's why a lot of GOP lawmakers want to see the ACA dismantled, but if you ask them what plans would they set up to replace it, they either clam up, redirect you to someone else, or suggest something lame like "voucher-based" or "free, open market".

[Mister Mets]

Gotta protect the interests of the party at all costs. Ethics and morality be damned. That's why Republicans don't throw the corrupt politicians under the bus during times of scandal.

One of the most illustrative scandals was the Ralph Notham one for Democrats.

It shows the party is willing to punish colleagues for scandals when there are no costs to it, insisting on the removal of Al Franken when he'll be replaced by a successor chosen by a Democratic Governor (and when there was a special election where the Republican was accused of earlier wrongdoing in another state) or deciding after 2016's election that Bill Clinton should have resigned, but that the moment it might actually have political costs, they'll back their candidates.

There were uniform calls for Ralph Northam to resign, until it turned out that the second in line (credibly accused of sexual assault by one woman and rape by another) and third in line (also did blackface in college) both had problems and taking a moral stand might result in Republicans getting power. This suggests to a cynic that Democrats aren't willing to throw anyone under the bus when it matters, and that concerns about ethics are just posturing.

[Gray Lensman]

The thing is; people are always happy about tearing stuff down 'cuz we like seeing **** get knocked down, but they don't like the idea of building things up, as it requires thinking, foresight, and understanding what may come. That's why a lot of GOP lawmakers want to see the ACA dismantled, but if you ask them what plans would they set up to replace it, they either clam up, redirect you to someone else, or suggest something lame like "voucher-based" or "free, open market".

To be honest, there are systems out there besides the Canadian one that seems to get most of the mentions by both right and left. Japan, Sweden, Finland, France, and most other developed countries all have their own take on how to provide healthcare to the citizens (and in some cases, all residents) of their countries. It seems almost all of them provide a higher life expectancy for less money than the US does. The only thing we do better is provide fast services to those with enough money to put themselves at the front of the line.

[Kevinroc]

One of the most illustrative scandals was the Ralph Notham one for Democrats.

It shows the party is willing to punish colleagues for scandals when there are no costs to it, insisting on the removal of Al Franken when he'll be replaced by a successor chosen by a Democratic Governor (and when there was a special election where the Republican was accused of earlier wrongdoing in another state) or deciding after 2016's election that Bill Clinton should have resigned, but that the moment it might actually have political costs, they'll back their candidates.

There were uniform calls for Ralph Northam to resign, until it turned out that the second in line (credibly accused of sexual assault by one woman and rape by another) and third in line (also did blackface in college) both had problems and taking a moral stand might result in Republicans getting power. This suggests to a cynic that Democrats aren't willing to throw anyone under the bus when it matters, and that concerns about ethics are just posturing.

"Both sides" at its finest.

[numberthirty]

"Both sides" at its finest.

That said, there is nothing in what he posted that isn't a fact.

That sort of nonsense is only going to create an issue if you are asking voters to actually trust your party.

[Tendrin]

"Facts" must also require 'context' and 'bigger pictures' to be understood.

[Kevinroc]

What currently elected Republican has condemned Trump for his racism? (And don't say Amash. We all know what happened there.)

[numberthirty]

"Facts" must also require 'context' and 'bigger pictures' to be understood.

Dude, come on.

Standards stop really meaning much if they are something that Republicans should hold themselves to while there is "Context" and a "Bigger Picture" when it is a Democrat.

All looking the other way on that does is undermine attempts to actually get things done.

[Tendrin]

Dude, come on.

Standards stop really meaning much if they are something that Republicans should hold themselves to while there is "Context" and a "Bigger Picture" when it is a Democrat.

All looking the other way on that does is undermine attempts to actually get things done.

As usual, that's now how this works.

Again: facts require context which you deliberately ignore to pursue your 'both sides' agenda. The bigger picture is that while the 'facts' about Northam may be accurate (I'd beg to differ about how those facts are being characterized) he's not really comparable to Trump, which you'd know if you gave a crap about anything other than Democrat bashing in a sad effort to elevate Sanders.

[numberthirty]

As usual, that's now how this works.

Again: facts require context which you deliberately ignore to pursue your 'both sides' agenda. The bigger picture is that while the 'facts' about Northam may be accurate (I'd beg to differ about how those facts are being characterized) he's not really comparable to Trump, which you'd know if you gave a crap about anything other than Democrat bashing in a sad effort to elevate Sanders.

You don't need to be to undermine efforts at making progress.

Which is what that whole situation does. Northam isn't even the worst part of that equation.

[Tendrin]

You don't need to be to undermine efforts at making progress.

Which is what that whole situation does. Northam isn't even the worst part of that equation.

No one is actually defending Northam. We're just not pretending he's locking kids in camps and that this is somehow the same as the unwillingness to hold Trump accountable. When Northam kills a kid and the Dems protect him, let me know.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Republicans Silent On Trump’s Racist Remarks To Congresswomen

The president had urged the Democratic congresswomen to “go back” to the countries they came from. Well, of course Republicans are silent, they're too damn scared of Trump to contradict him or complain about what he said to those women, three of whom WERE BORN IN THE U.S. By staying mum on Trump's vulgar comments, those cowardly bastards gave tacit approval of his vile behavior. Meanwhile:

**********

Rep. Ted Lieu: Trump Proves He’s A ‘Racist Ass’ With Attack On Congresswomen

The Democratic congressman called the president’s comments “bigoted” and “un-American.” See? THAT'S how men of proper moral character respond to reprehensible statements like what Trump spewed, NOT hide under the bed like Republicans had done.

**********

Ocasio-Cortez Rips Trump’s Racist Attack: Our Power ‘Makes You Seethe’

She pointedly noted she was born in the U.S. after a xenophobic Trump rant targeted her and Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley and Ilhan Omar. It was both easy, and predictable for Trump to slam women of color, and do so via Twitter. He wouldn't have had the balls to say what he did to their faces because he's a gutless fucking bastard.

**********

Trump Campaign Official Claims People Are ‘Lying’ About Trump’s Racist Twitter Rant

Say WHAT?!?

**********

‘Fox & Friends’ Hosts Fawn Over Trump’s Racist Rant Against Democratic Congresswomen

The three Fox News personalities shared a good laugh about the president’s vitriolic remarks. “Comedian in chief,” Todd Piro said. Show of hands if anyone's surprised at that moment of disgusting behavior. Anyone? Didn't think so.

[Mister Mets]

"Facts" must also require 'context' and 'bigger pictures' to be understood.

The bigger picture is that Democrats do seem to protect the interests of the party, and that decisions on how to handle flawed politicians occur within this context.

"Both sides" at its finest.

Is it mistaken in any way?

I seem to recall that your parents are immigrants?

My mom is, and my dad's parents were. What immigration policies does this obligate me to support?

You know, I swear, unlike the trolls and the griefers who come here all the time to bait us about being right wing and then run off the moment someone bites the hook, I don't know what it is about you that is so... stubborn, and fastidious towards ignoring things that paint your beloved GOP in a negative light? Democrats don't favor "open borders". Open borders would be the antithesis towards national security and protecting this country. The issue, based from my somewhat ignorant perspective, stems more towards a frustration that, this year, Trump had the government shut down so he could get his wall funding, but had to reopen the government and didn't get the funding for the wall, and you presumably not liking that outcome since it set the party back as it meant the president failed in one of his major goals.

As for this particular bout of whataboutism, I'll play along. We don't need to make fancy resorts that Candace Owens claims we have given immigrants with Zumba classes and spa treatments, since that's ludicrous and airheaded, even for someone as obnoxious as her. That being said, an unfortunate reality is that, right now, we must consider that there is a rise of immigration coming in from the south and that we need to factor this in regarding processing and handling, which may require the construction of more facilities along the southern border to handle the influx, to start. This can help curb overcrowding. The government is always hiring for Border Patrol in its various departments, but considering that the people in charge change during presidential administrations, and the people in charge tend to follow along with ideologies of said president in charge, in a perfect world, you could have this be operated by a non-partisan, third party group, but that would most likely violate several laws. Therefore, you're always going to have issues of years with favorable and unfavorable policies towards asylum seekers and other illegal activities. That's an unfortunate reality.

I am generally careful about referring to "de facto Open borders" meaning a system where there are pretty much no restrictions on the number of immigrants, even if it allows for keeping out a small percentage of identified career criminals and their associates. As for what elected officials want, I've yet to see descriptions of a limiting principle.

On the migrant crisis, I was specifically curious about what Democratic elected officials were advocating for, which is necessary to know in order to determine that what Trump did is worse.

Thanks for posting your solutions. A more independent border patrol is an interesting idea. Getting it done requires a presidential and congress on-board with the idea, but it's probably doable. I'm stealing this idea from a podcast I listen to, but one potential problem that we'd still have is that a particular type of person might be interested in working for ICE, or whatever the next version of border patrol is. There is also the question of what the directive for an independent border patrol should be?

'Economic migrants' is a term used to disparage people who travel thousands of miles to come to a safe place to work and raise their families in peace.

It's meant as a neutral descriptive term. In order to discuss policies, we have to be able to refer to affected individuals.

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.

Right -- how lucky for all of us that the Republicans nominated an unapologetic racist to lead our nation.

Many of whom would rather talk about metaphysical open borders than the outright bigotry inherent in their party.

Since it increases Democrats' chances of winning in upcoming elections (and certainly helped in the midterms) it is lucky for Democrats that someone with Trump's flaws won. Imagine running against Mitt Romney with the current economy.

[aja_christopher]

One of the most illustrative scandals was the Ralph Notham one for Democrats.

Trump alone has had dozens of scandals and criminal indictments within his administration yet you won't discuss said criminal behavior.

Instead you again try to pivot to "Democrats" rather than discussing your own party's failings, proving exactly what was said about Republicans protecting their criminal representatives.

This is possibly one of the worst anecdotal arguments I've seen -- we all know Republicans have far more criminals in their ranks than Democrats and pointing out one or two examples proves nothing whatsoever.

Here are some facts about the criminal behavior of Republicans vs the criminal behavior of Democrats:



It's ridiculous to argue that Democrats are the ones supporting criminals and corruption when Republicans are the main ones engaging in it.

It can also be easily argued that the Republicans let Bush get away with plenty of criminal behavior, including torture, just as you won't discuss the criminal behavior of Trump. Until that changes, it's impossible to take you seriously as an objective observer, much less an honest debater.

Since it increases Democrats' chances of winning in upcoming elections (and certainly helped in the midterms) it is lucky for Democrats that someone with Trump's flaws won. Imagine running against Mitt Romney with the current economy.

There's absolutely nothing "lucky" about having a racist and a xenophobe for president -- something you apparently don't understand since you seem to share similar outlooks on things like "open borders" and "limiting principles" justifying separating children from parents as a "deterrent", along with the aforementioned acceptance of criminal behavior from your party.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Trump alone has had dozens of scandals and criminal indictments within his administration yet you won't discuss said criminal behavior.

Compared to all the **** Trump has done, Northam is amateur night in Dixie.

It can easily be argued that the Republicans let Bush get away with plenty of criminal behavior, including torture, just as you won't discuss the criminal behavior of Trump.acceptance of criminal behavior from your party.

Let's not forget Republicans looking the other way and letting Dubya launch a war in Iraq on phony intelligence that Saddam Hussein had WMD's, a conflict that needlessly cost the lives of our brave servicemen and servicewomen and maimed scores more.