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

[Mister Mets]

On the DHS... I was watching an old Lewis Black comedy special yesterday, and he made mention of Tom Ridge, the first DHS director creating a color system for terror threat warnings that was useless because every time they changed the threat level, they wouldn't just say a color, they had to explain what that color means in detail. Which defeats the entire purpose of having a color system to designate threat level, just explain what the threat level is and leave the rainbow out of it. He then reminded the audience that this entire department's "intelligence" could do things like send Ridge to a podium to warn people of the risk of a chemical weapons attack (that never came), and told them that the best ways to protect themselves were duct tape and water.



Seriously, when folks like Ron Paul grouse about government bureaucracy and agencies they want to do away with, they always talk about the Department of Education (which is super important for shaping our future), but they never seem to think that maybe the DHS is redundant with an NSA already in existence.

A quick google search shows that Ron Paul wrote against the Department of Homeland Security when it was created, promised in a 2007 presidential debate he would abolish the DHS, and wrote or ghost-wrote a column in 2015 suggesting it's pointless.

https://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul56.html

The administration and Congress put the finishing touches on the monstrous Homeland Security bill last week, creating the first new federal department since the Department of Defense at the end of World War II. Laughably, the new department has been characterized as merely a "reorganization" of existing agencies, even though I notice no department was abolished to make up for it! One thing we can be sure of in this world is that federal agencies grow. The Homeland Security department, like all federal agencies, will increase in size exponentially over the coming decades. Its budget, number of employees, and the scope of its mission will EXPAND. Congress has no idea what it will have created twenty or fifty years hence, when less popular presidents have the full power of a domestic spying agency at their disposal.

The frightening details of the Homeland Security bill, which authorizes an unprecedented level of warrantless spying on American citizens, are still emerging. Those who still care about the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4th amendment, have every reason to be alarmed. But the process by which Congress created the bill is every bit as reprehensible as its contents.

Ironically, many in Congress who usually champion limited government were enthusiastic supporters of the largest federal expansion in 50 years. Twenty years ago President Reagan revitalized conservatives across the country by appealing to their Goldwater roots, promising to slash the size of government and eliminate whole departments. Yet the promise of a smaller government went unfulfilled, and today Congress passes budgets even larger that those of the Clinton years.

Of course the Homeland Security bill did receive some opposition from the President's critics. Yet did they attack the legislation because it threatens to debase the 4th amendment and create an Orwellian surveillance society? Did they attack it because it will chill political dissent or expand the drug war? No, they attacked it on the grounds that it failed to secure enough high-paying federal union jobs, thus angering one of Washington's most powerful special interest groups. Ultimately, however, even the most prominent critics voted for the bill.

The lesson learned from the rush to create a Homeland Security department is that the size and scope of government grows regardless of which party is in power. The federal government now devours a whopping 40% of the nation's GDP, the highest level since World War II – and a massive new department can only make things worse. The Homeland Security bill provides a vivid example of the uncontrolled spending culture in Washington, a culture that views the true source of political power – your tax dollars – as unlimited.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/u...cs/06text.html

MR. WALLACE: Congressman Paul, your answer is to cut both taxes and spending. You say that you would eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Homeland Security, Medicare. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. : (Laughs.)

MR. WALLACE: I know that you used to want to end the FBI. I’m not sure whether you still support that idea, sir.

MR. : No.

MR. WALLACE: Perhaps you can tell us. But if you get rid of the CIA, let alone the FBI, how would President Paul have any idea, any intelligence of what our enemies, foreign and domestic, are up to?

MR. WALLACE: Perhaps you can tell us. But if you get rid of the CIA, let alone the FBI, how would President Paul have any idea, any intelligence of what our enemies, foreign and domestic, are up to?

REP. PAUL: Well, you might ask a better question. Before 9/11, we were spending $40 billion a year, and the FBI was producing numerous information about people being trained on airplanes to fly on but not land in, and they totally ignored them. So it’s the inefficiency of the bureaucracy that is the problem. So increasing this with the Department of Homeland Security is spending more money, doesn’t solve the problem. Yes, we have every right in the world to know something about intelligence gathering, but we have to have intelligent people interpreting this information. (Cheers, applause.)

But, you know, just going for increasing presidential powers, as has been discussed, is rather disturbing to me. This whole idea that we’re supposed to sacrifice liberty for security -- we were advised against that. Don’t we remember that when you sacrifice liberty for security, you lose both? That’s what’s happening in this country today. (Cheers, applause.) We have a national ID card on our doorstep. It’s being implemented right now. We have FISA courts, we have warrantless searches, we’ve lost habeas corpus, we’ve had secret prisons around the world, and we have torture going on. (Bell.) That’s un-American, and we need to use the power of the presidency to get it back in order in order to take care of us and protect this country and our liberties.

http://www.campaignforliberty.org/cl...-security-good (It should be noted that the headline is "Department of Homeland Security: What is it good for?"

[Mister Mets]

I am Amereecan votar. I live in big Amereecan city. I vote for Mr. Obama and Clinton woman, but now see our President Trump is strong leader. He no colludes and has no sex with the children.

signed,
good Democratic comrade.

The implication that anyone making up stuff in a forum would have to be Russian may be off. It is possible to be an American troll.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ed-gender.html

OH WBE-EEeeeeee…

Primary polls do show him well behind frontrunner Lieutenant Governor Tate Reeves, as well as state supreme court justice Robert Foster, so he's most likely to stay a state representative.

https://www.yallpolitics.com/2019/06...ction-ballots/

Interestingly, this may be a race where Democrats are competitive, since their likely candidate is state attorney general Jim Hood, who had been elected to four terms in the office.

Hello...new here. Just getting back into comics and was looking for a good forum for discussions. Stumbled onto this thread.

So, is it accurate to say this forum is majority left-leaning, then with little-to-no conservative voices out there?

Just curious.

The regulars are largely liberal.

Personally, I think it simply reflects, in a small sample way, the views of most people. The political opinions here are pretty varied on a number of issues. It's just that, there are some issues that most tend to be on the same side of.

If this were representative, 40 percent of posts by Americans would by by people who support Trump which isn't the case.

Laughing my ass off at white knighting for Andrew 'Pay You 1,000 Dollars A Month For Existing' Yang while accusing the other candidates of unrealistic promises.

I don't wish to cast aspersions on any specific poster here, but I wonder what the best strategy would be to pretend to be left-leaning and mess with a comments section.

Backing Yang or Gabbard would be too obvious for me since they've got some support on the right, and are willing to engage with right-wing media.

It would make sense to claim to back Pete Buttigieg, since his chances of winning are rather low, and he's criticized for how he handles racial issues, which raises some hot-button questions.

Otherwise, one could claim to back Sanders and pose as an obnoxious Bernie bro.

[worstblogever]

A quick google search shows that Ron Paul wrote against the Department of Homeland Security when it was created, promised in a 2007 presidential debate he would abolish the DHS, and wrote or ghost-wrote a column in 2015 suggesting it's pointless.

https://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul56.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/u...cs/06text.html

http://www.campaignforliberty.org/cl...-security-good (It should be noted that the headline is "Department of Homeland Security: What is it good for?"

One, you missed the point there. During the 2012 presidential debates, when Rick Perry was listing the departments of government he would do away with, and Ron Paul helped finish his thought before giving his own list, both oddly omitted the DHS, but were aiming for Commerce, Education, Energy. Several others are chomping at the bit for the EPA.

The point was, the DHS isn't on the chopping block for most, and even Ron Paul, who wants to chop almost all the programs, omitted it when the topic came up to go after several other agencies first.

[Kirby101]

The implication that anyone making up stuff in a forum would have to be Russian may be off. It is possible to be an American troll.

I was making a larger implication of someone claiming something they obviously aren't. I thought this Russian bit would be funny

[Bonesaw]

Ah, we're going to jump right to the "you're the bigot for calling out racists" conservative meme, eh?

That's nice.

Not at all what I said. No issue with calling out racism. What I am saying is, there is a boat-load of insults hurled at conservatives/republicans in general in this thread, lumping such a large portion of people into one basket as though it would almost be impossible to be a conservative/republican inserting an attempt at civilized discussion from that point of view on any given single issue. To me, it seems already well established that if you identify as a conservative/republican and have a desire to express those values in this thread, you may as well expect the same level of hatred, insults, ect.

[Kirby101]

Well, I find that strange, since in this thread alone (and others scattered around as I have read) various insults demonizing conservatives and republicans on the whole, as though just by associating with either of those entities, you must be an evil bigot...and all the rest of those lumping adjectives you listed.

So how do you characterize a person who supports racist, bigoted, White Nationalist politicians and policies?

[Bonesaw]

So how do you characterize a person who supports racist, bigoted, White Nationalist politicians and policies?

As an idiot, LOL.

What I wouldn't do is label the entirety population of conservatives/republicans as such. That's very assuming, devisive and it contributes to the overall division between the two groups, which, call me crazy, should not be a policy anybody subscribes to.

[worstblogever]

Not at all what I said. No issue with calling out racism. What I am saying is, there is a boat-load of insults hurled at conservatives/republicans in general in this thread, lumping such a large portion of people into one basket as though it would almost be impossible to be a conservative/republican inserting an attempt at civilized discussion from that point of view on any given single issue. To me, it seems already well established that if you identify as a conservative/republican and have a desire to express those values in this thread, you may as well expect the same level of hatred, insults, ect.

So how do you characterize a person who supports racist, bigoted, White Nationalist politicians and policies?

As an idiot, LOL.

What I wouldn't do is label the entirety population of conservatives/republicans as such. That's very assuming, devisive and it contributes to the overall division between the two groups, which, call me crazy, should not be a policy anybody subscribes to.

Then we agree. Conservatives right now are defending pedophiles like Roy Moore, known sexual assault perpetrators and suspected rapists like Donald Trump, locking immigrant children in cages who are (as we're now learning in reports) being sexually assaulted by some guards if not outright losing them (Trump administration), defending why it's okay for a hostile foreign nation to rig our elections so they win, banning religious minorities from entering the country, to name but a few revolting stances.

You call them idiots. I call them crazy and stupid. Whatever negative things I, or anyone else might say about people with these repugnant views, who call themselves American conservatives, is justified.

"Bigoted" does not apply to what are political views. It applies to discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or religion.

[Kirby101]

As an idiot, LOL.

What I wouldn't do is label the entirety population of conservatives/republicans as such. That's very assuming, devisive and it contributes to the overall division between the two groups, which, call me crazy, should not be a policy anybody subscribes to.

What part of the Republican Party today does not support racist, bigoted, anti-science, corrupt policies? If they support Trump, which they do, they support this. The decisiveness is Trump and his agenda, not pointing it out.

Where do you land on the political spectrum? (if you feel like answering)

[Iron Maiden]

To be honest, I don't see how anyone can be proud to call themselves Republicans in this current climate. The ones I respect are those who have left the party and became independents etc like George Will (joined the Federalist Society instead), Joe Scarborough, Steve Schmidt, Tom Nichols, George Conway, Rep. Justin Amash. They recognize that it has become a cult - like party of Trump. Every day, or sometimes many times a day, he does things that would have caused a full out revolt if Obama even thought of doing.

[Bonesaw]

Then we agree.

Apparently not.

Conservatives right now...

Some conservatives- not all. That's my point. Just like I know prominent Democrats who cautiously were against abortion and when New York instituted late-term abortion became fully-blown disgusted by the topic of abortion and now identify closer to pro-life. You should not lump every conservative/republican into the same bucket in an attempt to justify the tidal wave of insults found in this thread. We need less of that kind of mentality all around. Being that way, which I see as the easier, arrogant and embellishing way is only furthering the division in this country. What we need is less generalizing/labeling and more articulation and attention to the idea that there may be more common ground if there would just be an adjustment in the way interactions are handled, even, as far as it goes, on a comic forum. Keep in mind, that as vehemently sure you seem to be on all these topics, there are a great many people who feel the just as vehemently sure on the other side. Neither side has it 100% correct. Like, for instance, those same "children in cages" existed under Obama's terms. Keep that in mind the next time you want to tear into every conservative in the country for being connected with that issue.

You call them idiots. I call them crazy and stupid. Whatever negative things I, or anyone else might say about people with these repugnant views, who call themselves American conservatives, is justified.

No. I called any individual- a person, as quoted that had those views, an idiot.

"Bigoted" does not apply to what are political views. It applies to discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or religion.

Yes, which are not encompassed with all conservatives, as you would describe. In fact, there is plenty of racism that exists from individuals who label themselves as liberals or democrats, but you will never see me describe liberals and democrats as bigots.

[Kirby101]

The GOP policies and Agenda, as personified by their leader is racist, bigoted and White Supremacist. What is the difference between being a racist and supporting one?

[Wakeneuron]

I'm independent but I will probably never vote for Democrat again. Most large urban communities are under Democratic leadership and the conditions there are horrible. Under bill Clinton Black incarceration has gone up after the signing the North American Free Trade Agreement which directly caused the construction of more Private Prisons which imprisoned shockingly 80 percent of the local residents who of course were poor and/or Black. Also increased the number of Detention Centers which of course imprisons poor migrants who only came here looking for a job. Shockingly I read a few years back an article that documents the journey of migrants from farming communities in Mexico. Some of these migrants come to the US because they live in mountanious areas. The journey into the US is quickier than going into the larger cities of Mexico because there infrastructure and the roads connecting the small Mexican towns to the city are terrible or nonexistence. Imo the flow of migrants can slow tremendously with improve roads and infastructure in rural Mexico.

The Democrats and some Republicans are hypocritical. They advocate hard for the rights of Women and the free press but say nothing about the many human rights abuses in countries around the World.

[aja_christopher]

I'm independent but I will probably never vote for Democrat again. Most large urban communities are under Democratic leadership and the conditions there are horrible. Under bill Clinton Black incarceration has gone up after the signing the North American Free Trade Agreement which directly caused the construction of more Private Prisons which imprisoned shockingly 80 percent of the local residents who of course were poor and/or Black.

I'm black, have enjoyed living in many non-horrible "large urban communities under Democratic leadership" in the past and your post is just another example of ignorance masquerading as concern.

If you don't want to vote Democratic -- and are likewise fine with the Republicans and Trump driving this country further into isolation while simultaneously blatantly abusing the rights of the same "minorities" you claim to care about in the same breath -- then that's your choice, but don't try to use your concern for "minorities" as an excuse while we have a president and a political party (the Republicans) pushing a blatantly white nationalist agenda in both the White House and the Senate.

Any one even remotely concerned about said issue would vote Democratic by default, so save the "both sides" rhetoric for another day.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I'm independent but I will probably never vote for Democrat again. Most large urban communities are under Democratic leadership and the conditions there are horrible. Under bill Clinton Black incarceration has gone up after the signing the North American Free Trade Agreement which directly caused the construction of more Private Prisons which imprisoned shockingly 80 percent of the local residents who of course were poor and/or Black. Also increased the number of Detention Centers which of course imprisons poor migrants who only came here looking for a job. Shockingly I read a few years back an article that documents the journey of migrants from farming communities in Mexico. Some of these migrants come to the US because they live in mountanious areas. The journey into the US is quickier than going into the larger cities of Mexico because there infrastructure and the roads connecting the small Mexican towns to the city are terrible or nonexistence. Imo the flow of migrants can slow tremendously with improve roads and infastructure in rural Mexico.

The Democrats and some Republicans are hypocritical. They advocate hard for the rights of Women and the free press but say nothing about the many human rights abuses in countries around the World.

You won’t be popular on here with that take. It confuses many of the regulars that anyone who isn’t Republican doesn’t view it as an all or nothing team sport game where Democrats must win at all costs