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

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Again if Clinton was so progressive, why did she seem to have no answer (and thus ceed ground) to Trump when he attacked NAFTA? Trump told the working class that foreigners were coming to take their jobs and he was going to stop it and she said nothing to them, heck she barely campaigned in the rust belt states, she gave those Trump on a platter because she thought they were in her pocket. If she was progressive, she able to counter Trump on that, not just surrender ground to him right away on this issue.

This whole idea that she was ''the most progressive candidate ever'' seems like Bostain Globe fluff piece that made her seem more progressive then her actual record showed, that of her being another out of touch war hawk, a corporate-backed center right career politician. People were supposed to trust that she would actually keep her supposed progressive promises, despite her record saying she wouldn't

If Clinton and Biden are ''progressives'' despite the fact they supported the crime bill that increased incarnation rates for African Americans, supported the war in Iraq and financial deregulation, that word has no meaning.

If you are going to accuse of ''relitigating the 2016 election'' if people think Biden is a good choice, I think it does need to be relitigated, because I think that is just repeating the mistakes of the past, rather then learning from them.

How about this time we try to counter right populism with left-wing populism, instead of trying to counter it with vacuous Third Way nothing policies.

I'm sick of relitigating 2016, but the answer to your question is that to progressively minded voters who actually cared about a progressive platform and not merely defeating Republicans, Clinton was not a progressive. She was a war hawk who was way too cozy with Wall Street and had an itchy finger for deregulation.

Now by very low standards she was probably the most progressive canidates to the era she was in than anybody since pre 50's (maybe FDR tbh). But that was in a sense that Obama was more progressive than Bill Clinton who was more progressive than Mondale who was probably in the ballpark of Carter etc.

The people who are part of what is understood to be the progressive movement have an idea of what that means. The people who say "I want to vote for a progressive" have a concept of what types of policies that canidate must in large part support. And if you try to change up the definition, it's just insults their intelligence.

[numberthirty]

Again if Clinton was so progressive, why did she seem to have no answer (and thus ceed ground) to Trump when he attacked NAFTA? Trump told the working class that foreigners were coming to take their jobs and he was going to stop it and she said nothing to them, heck she barely campaigned in the rust belt states, she gave those Trump on a platter because she thought they were in her pocket. If she was progressive, she able to counter Trump on that, not just surrender ground to him right away on this issue.

This whole idea that she was ''the most progressive candidate ever'' seems like Bostain Globe fluff piece that made her seem more progressive then her actual record showed, that of her being another out of touch war hawk, a corporate-backed center right career politician. People were supposed to trust that she would actually keep her supposed progressive promises, despite her record saying she wouldn't

If Clinton and Biden are ''progressives'' despite the fact they supported the crime bill that increased incarnation rates for African Americans, supported the war in Iraq and financial deregulation, that word has no meaning.

If you are going to accuse of ''relitigating the 2016 election'' if people think Biden is a good choice, I think it does need to be relitigated, because I think that is just repeating the mistakes of the past, rather then learning from them.

How about this time we try to counter right populism with left-wing populism, instead of trying to counter it with vacuous Third Way nothing policies.



Why not just run Brad Pitt then?

I think people are underestimating how people in 2016 did not like the status quo and voted for Trump simply because promised to change it, just promising to return us to the status quo, rather than changing it is the wrong way to go, the things the created Trumpism will not be addressed if that happens.

Might as well be saying "He's the greatest hitter tee ball has ever seen."

While what your saying could technically be the case, it's not exactly groundbreaking.

[numberthirty]

I'm sick of relitigating 2016, but the answer to your question is that to progressively minded voters who actually cared about a progressive platform and not merely defeating Republicans, Clinton was not a progressive. She was a war hawk who was way too cozy with Wall Street and had an itchy finger for deregulation.

Now by very low standards she was probably the most progressive canidates to the era she was in than anybody since pre 50's (maybe FDR tbh). But that was in a sense that Obama was more progressive than Bill Clinton who was more progressive than Mondale who was probably in the ballpark of Carter etc.

The people who are part of what is understood to be the progressive movement have an idea of what that means. The people who say "I want to vote for a progressive" have a concept of what types of policies that canidate must in large part support. And if you try to change up the definition, it's just insults their intelligence.

Let's get real for a minute...

"I will release my speech transcripts when everyone else does."

You are going to have a doozy of a time calling that "Progressive...", and having it mean anything to anyone who wasn't already backing you anyway.

Never mind that you had Bill out there still making the case for the strengths of the '94 Crime Bill.

If that's your campaign, it ain't "The Most Progressive Ever Run..."

[Tendrin]

People who shout ''Clinton was too cozy with wall street!' sound like folks more interested in platitudes than the policies she would've enacted, in any case.

[The Overlord]

I'm sick of relitigating 2016, but the answer to your question is that to progressively minded voters who actually cared about a progressive platform and not merely defeating Republicans, Clinton was not a progressive. She was a war hawk who was way too cozy with Wall Street and had an itchy finger for deregulation.

Now by very low standards she was probably the most progressive canidates to the era she was in than anybody since pre 50's (maybe FDR tbh). But that was in a sense that Obama was more progressive than Bill Clinton who was more progressive than Mondale who was probably in the ballpark of Carter etc.

The people who are part of what is understood to be the progressive movement have an idea of what that means. The people who say "I want to vote for a progressive" have a concept of what types of policies that canidate must in large part support. And if you try to change up the definition, it's just insults their intelligence.

I don't want to relitigate the 2016 election either, but I think we should learn something from that defeat, otherwise, we are just repeating mistakes from the past.

If the ''progressive'' is so loose it can be applied to war hawks who support the prison industrial complex and financial deregulation, the word means nothing, if policy is so unimportant, we may as well nominate Brad Pitt for the Dems and instead of a debate, he and Trump can have a pie eating contest, just make this farce complete.

People who shout ''Clinton was too cozy with wall street!' sound like folks more interested in platitudes than the policies she would've enacted, in any case.

What her voting for the Iraq war or supporting the 1994 crime bill that massively increased African American prison population? Is the Iraq war and the prison industrial complex ''progressive'' now?

If she was so progressive, why didn't she vote against the Iraq War and do the right thing that was hard to do, instead of doing the easy and popular thing? Maybe her being a ''progressive'' would actually mean something if she did it out of belief, not convenience.

[numberthirty]

While this is obviously on the outskirts of actual "Politics"/"News", it was a little too priceless not to mention...

- https://comicbook.com/gaming/2019/06...ation-xbox-pc/

Russian Defense Ministry Says Metal Gear Is An "American Intelligence Project"

[Robotman]

Trump and the GOP have immediately jumped on the democratic candidates saying that they would give illegal immigrants health insurance. I think this will be the basis of his campaign. “They’re trying to use your hard earned money to pay for health insurance for the people who are trying to steal your jobs!!!” I really hope who ever the democratic candidate ends up being, they have a good explanation that gets right to the point. They’re gonna have to find a way to explain the fact that illegal immigrants actually pay millions of dollars in taxes for services they can’t use.

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/172290...ants-pay-taxes

[4saken1]

I just don't want to deal with it. Warren is as good if not better on the economy. Quite frankly, it's her pet issues and she is the most skilled and nuanced at that. She's as good on healthcare. She's on the right path on education if not just a bit more pragmantic. I overall think she's a better debater than Bernie and she has a real ability to connect without seeming abrasive (something I think Harris will struggle with as things move foreward, as I viewer her as the second best debater in the field), and she has credibility with progressives who support Bernie's wing and the centrists aren't terrified of her and there is no bad blood. I said a long time ago here, Warren and Harris would be slightly different versions of the middle ground between Bernie and Biden that would be able to build the best coalition. And as of right now she has the most comprehensive policy.

It would be a mistake for her not to get the nom. Otherwise I just see the same infighting.

I agree with you on this point! I do think Hillary supporters would also be much more likely to vote for Warren if she ended up being the candidate than they would Sanders.

[Tendrin]

I don't want to relitigate the 2016 election either, but I think we should learn something from that defeat, otherwise, we are just repeating mistakes from the past.

If the ''progressive'' is so loose it can be applied to war hawks who support the prison industrial complex and financial deregulation, the word means nothing, if policy is so unimportant, we may as well nominate Brad Pitt for the Dems and instead of a debate, he and Trump can have a pie eating contest, just make this farce complete.



What her voting for the Iraq war or supporting the 1994 crime bill that massively increased African American prison population? Is the Iraq war and the prison industrial complex ''progressive'' now?

I didn't say that, of course, and it wasn't my point. She had an extremely progressive policy platform which, if policies mattered like people want to say they did, her actually very detailed policies should have mattered more but instead even now we have people talking caricature and character over policy because 'prison industrial complex!'.

Policy is nice. Having a plan is nice for those of us who give a crap about it but most people pretty obviously don't.

[PwrdOn]

Trump and the GOP have immediately jumped on the democratic candidates saying that they would give illegal immigrants health insurance. I think this will be the basis of his campaign. “They’re trying to use your hard earned money to pay for health insurance for the people who are trying to steal your jobs!!!” I really hope who ever the democratic candidate ends up being, they have a good explanation that gets right to the point. They’re gonna have to find a way to explain the fact that illegal immigrants actually pay millions of dollars in taxes for services they can’t use.

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/172290...ants-pay-taxes

These days everything the GOP says about illegal immigrants pretty much applies to anyone that doesn't fit their narrow definition of what a "real American" is. Even if you are talking about people whose families have been in America for two or three generations, speak mostly English, and are probably more patriotic than anyone, as far as Republicans are concerned they are only fit to do menial work for meager pay, and have no right to demand the kind of resources and lifestyle that white America takes for granted.

[Tendrin]

*dies a bit more inside*

Asked again about busing, Trump says: "It has been something that they've done for a long period of time. There aren't that many ways of getting people to schools."

[WestPhillyPunisher]

This Is Why We Need A Climate Debate

A crisis of this scale needs more than 15 minutes and obligatory sound bites. I couldn't agree more. The world has a problem and it DEMANDS to be addressed before it's too late, if it isn't already.

**********

Chilling New Birtherism Slam Suddenly Surges Against Kamala Harris On Social Media

Racist tweets claim the senator doesn’t represent American blacks because her dad’s from Jamaica. What this tells me: conservatives and right wingers fear a surging Harris after her strong showing during Thursday's debate and see her as a potential threat to Trump, thus the attacks.

**********

Joe Biden Loses Support From Top Donor After Segregationist, Hyde Amendment Comments: Report

Tom McInerney also told CNBC he didn’t think the former vice president had performed well in this week’s Democratic primary debate. Backlash from Joe's poor showing at the debate continues. I know it's early, but one wonders if Biden's decision to run might have been ill-conceived.

**********

Trump Jokes With Putin About ‘Fake News’ On Capital Gazette Shooting Anniversary

The U.S. president lightly suggested “get[ting] rid of” journalists. I hate to make a moron like Trump sound machiavellian, I can't help but suspect he purposely timed his remarks around the grim anniversary.

**********

Jeff Flake Slams Carter For Challenging Trump’s Legitimacy. Twitter Critics Agog.

“Don’t come for Jimmy Carter,” former Arizona senator is warned. Most curious that Flake suddenly flopped like a flounder on Trump, especially since he's retired from politics and disliked the Orange Menace.

[aja_christopher]

The type of corporate centrism Biden represents is not progressive, IMO. To me, Bill Clinton made the Democrats into back in the 90s, is make them turn away from progressivism and make them a center-right party and guys like Biden are carrying that banner. Progressivism should be ideas that actually help people, not empty platitudes. We have to undo what Bill Clinton, whether that was a good call back in the 90s is irrelevant, Third Way politics has failed and needs to be replaced true left wing progressive agenda. The Third Way machine should be broken, burned and buried, its an enemy of progress, not an ally, it has not changed since 1992 and just seems out of date.

You keep avoiding the fact that many Democratic presidents have tried to be "progressive" in the past (Carter, Clinton, Obama) and they were always obstructed by the Republicans and -- at times -- other Democrats.

Ideals are great, but they are meaningless if they have no chance of being passed by Congress -- neither moderates nor progressives can be effective without Congressional support: the reason why we don't have things like universal health care, better corporate regulation, sensible gun control legislation, better police oversight, higher minimum wages, more tax revenue from corporate interests, policies that address climate change (etc) isn't because "moderate" Democrats don't propose or support them -- it's because Republicans block them at every opportunity.

Which is why I repeat: the enemy of "progress" isn't the "moderate" Democrats, it's the "conservative" Republicans.

-----
"The Clinton health care plan was a 1993 healthcare reform package proposed by the administration of President Bill Clinton and closely associated with the chair of the task force devising the plan, First Lady of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The president had campaigned heavily on health care in the 1992 presidential election. The task force was created in January 1993, but its own processes were somewhat controversial and drew litigation. Its goal was to come up with a comprehensive plan to provide universal health care for all Americans, which was to be a cornerstone of the administration's first-term agenda. The president delivered a major health care speech to the US Congress in September 1993. During his speech he proposed an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees.

Opposition to the plan was heavy from conservatives, libertarians, and the health insurance industry. The industry produced a highly effective television ad, "Harry and Louise", in an effort to rally public support against the plan.



Instead of uniting behind the original proposal, many Democrats offered a number of competing plans of their own. Hillary Clinton was drafted by the Clinton Administration to head a new Task Force and sell the plan to the American people, which ultimately backfired amid the barrage from the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries and considerably diminished her own popularity.

On September 26, 1994, the final compromise Democratic bill was declared dead by Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinto...e_plan_of_1993

[worstblogever]

It was on this date in 2015 that "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" profiled of Charlotte O’Hara, a member of the Kansas House of Representatives who once filed pro-life legislation that would requite a woman seeking an abortion to sign a document that they were "terminating the life of a whole living being". She also tried starting a Tea Party mutiny against Gov. Sam Brownback, telling supporters "peasants with pitchforks are needed to get the attention of the Topkea elite". O'Hara also warned against the threat of the Agenda 21 Conspiracy Theory, and tried comparing a rival State Senator's support of state bonds as "communism", leading to her downfall in elections in both 2012 and 2014.


On this date in 2016, 2017, as well as 2018, that “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” presented profiles of the sitting U.S. House Representative from Georgia’s 12th Congressional District, Rick Allen, who after being elected for the first time in the 2014 elections, quickly made himself infamous in Washington for an outburst he made that pissed off even his fellow Republicans back in May of this year, when a week after Democrats cried foul after Republicans flipped their votes in support of an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have prevented government contractors from discriminating against employees based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, a second version passed with 43 Republicans actually supporting the idea. In the wake of that vote, Speaker Paul Ryan tried to gather many members of the GOP House, where Rick Allen pulled out his Bible, and read Scripture to those present, specifically passages from Romans 1:18-32, and Revelations 22:18-19, that in effect read that gays are sinners “worthy of death”. At that point, several of his colleagues stormed out, disgusted (and they should be).

Well, Rick Allen went viral because after the tragic shooting in Orlando just days later, as some were calling for some action, ANY action on gun control, the GOP offered their usual support to victims… their thoughts and prayers. In this instance, that came off as a lot of hollow bulls*** in particular because Rick Allen was one such person who got on social media to let those mourning know he was thinking and praying about it. To which, some of the victims had to wonder, “So what, are you praying that more of us die, then?” Allen was asked if he regretted or wanted to apologize for his remarks about the gays being “worthy of death”, and surprise… he didn’t regret them at all and stood by his decision to read them at that Republican meeting.

So it should come as little surprise that Rep. Allen spent his first term in office voting for anti-choice legislation without exceptions for rape and incest, attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and the bill to attempt to halt the resettling of Syrian refugees in the United States. But when you come from a conservative district in Georgia, the voters won’t pay attention to any of that or sweat that or the fact that you quoted Bible verses about gays being worthy of death, and they’ll re-elect you with 59% of the vote. His third term in office, is already starting to look like the first two:

• January 27th, 2019: Rick Allen voted against HJR 30, which was meant to express disapproval of Donald Trump not acting against Russian Federation for attacking our democracy. You see, he’s fine with our nation being sublet to Vladimir Putin.
• January 22nd, 2019: Allen votes against HR 676, which would prevent Donald Trump from doing the unthinkable and walking away from our allies in NATO to appease the Russians.
• January 23rd, 2019: Rep. Allen voted against HR 648, because he was gleefully enjoying the longest government shutdown in history.
• February 28th, 2019: Rick Allen votes against HR 1112, a bill which would have required universal background checks on all firearm purchases, and close the gun show loophole.
• March 14th, 2019: Rep. Allen votes against HJR 46, which sane members of Congress voted for to reject Donald Trump’s “national emergency” regarding the U.S. border and his attempts to reallocate funds for a border wall without Congressional approval.
• April 4th, 2019: Rick Allen is one of 158 Republicans who choose to vote against the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, likely because they feel the 2nd Amendment remaining absolute is more important than preventing people with a history of domestic abuse from owning a firearm (which statistics show, makes them more likely to use those firearms against women in their lives).
• June 4th, 2019: Allen votes against the Dreamers Act, because he’s too xenophobic and partisan to care about immigration reform.

We’ll continue to monitor Rick Allen, and see whether or not he expounds his opinions on what people deserve to live and die in other policy discussions.

[aja_christopher]

*dies a bit more inside*

The raw truth is that if he answered this question honestly -- that he doesn't think society should desegregate or that black and brown people deserve the right to a quality education -- many in America would agree with him.

People keep acting as if Trump winning was some fluke, when in reality it just exposes the truth about American politics and America in general.