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

[Dalak]

how you argue shows the strength of your points

Just leaving this here for emphasis.

woo, i don't see that in How to Win Friends and Influence People. That someone would embrace the label SJW belongs on a comic message board - in the fiction section in their tights.

[Xheight]

Just leaving this here for emphasis.

I'm good with that. I suppose 'turn the other cheek' was what I am supposed to do, except when it is bigoted, xenophobic, disagreeable...or makes little sense.

I was asked what was wrong with a long, bloated and conflating post posing as "news" and I gave it. I have yet to see a counter argument that is not directed at me.

[kmeyers]

Just leaving this here for emphasis.

Yes, he has the winning combination. Liar AND hypocrite.

[Dalak]

I'm good with that. I suppose 'turn the other cheek' was what I am supposed to do, except when it is bigoted, xenophobic, disagreeable...or makes little sense.

I was asked what was wrong with a long, bloated and conflating post posing as "news" and I gave it. I have yet to see a counter argument that is not directed at me.

When you've earned a serious debate by actually being genuine about it you might get one, and going back to edit a 2 day old post to own those flaming SJW Comic Book Nerds is more evidence that you aren't trying to be and never have been.

E:

Yes, he has the winning combination. Liar AND hypocrite.

I half expect him to start pulling out words like Alpha, Beta, and Cuck.

[Xheight]

Yes, he has the winning combination. Liar AND hypocrite.

glad to see that one thing hasn't changed around message boards - the race to call someone a troll and hope it sticks.

I'll still be here to put pins in any more bloated BS that comes down here. Right now I have to go pick up the kids.

[aja_christopher]

"Dear Attorney General Barr:

I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel’s report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had marked an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be released publicly.

Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time.

As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office’s work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel; to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).

While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release—a process that our Office is working with you to complete—that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation. It would also accord with the standard for public release of notifications to Congress cited in your letter. See 28 C.F.R. § 609(c) (“the Attorney General may determine that public release” of confressional notifications “would be in the public interest”).

Sincerely yours,

Robert S. Mueller, III

Special Counsel"

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5fFJOnW0AAFQsd.jpg

[BeastieRunner]

"Dear Attorney General Barr:

I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel’s report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had marked an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be released publicly.

Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time.

As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office’s work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel; to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).

While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release—a process that our Office is working with you to complete—that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation. It would also accord with the standard for public release of notifications to Congress cited in your letter. See 28 C.F.R. § 609(c) (“the Attorney General may determine that public release” of confressional notifications “would be in the public interest”).

Sincerely yours,

Robert S. Mueller, III

Special Counsel"

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5fFJOnW0AAFQsd.jpg

Rod and Mueller have been asked to testify. Trump can't block either now.

Whoops ...

[Mister Mets]

A resolution was unanimously signed by an entire county Republican Party calling for a Austrian white nationalist with ties to the New Zealand mosque mass shooter to be allowed to emigrate to the United States.

This individual has already been investigated in his home country for criminal activity, has been banned from the U.K., but the Republican Party would like to inject his bile and venom into our country's politics.

But the GOP hasn't become a white nationalist party. Nope.

I'm not as familiar with this situation, and attempts to read about it get into a bit of a rabbit hole, with context that doesn't explain why this person is so terrible. But what did this man do that was so objectionable that supporting a decision to treat him the same as anyone else seeking a spousal visa paints a county party as White Nationalist? This goes several levels beyond disagreement with him, when you suggest that every reasonable person must conclude that not only is he wrong but that he is so vile/ out of bounds that he shouldn't be treated normally by the law.

If you are talking "How is it like what George W. ran on?", George W. had the whole "Bringing honor back to the office..." bit. Sounded a lot like some of what Biden has had to say.

That's pretty much what most politicians will do when running to follow a morally suspect executive.

We're not going to have the following speech. "The main issue with Donald Trump is that we disagree with his policies. Everything else is pretext. I'm willing to be honest about it. The rest of the field isn't, so they're not fit for the White House. Unless they're running against a Republican. Then I'll support their lying asses over someone pushing for policies that will make the world a worst place."

Yes, she lost by the rules of the game, she cannot blame losing on the Electoral College, because she did nothing to oppose it before losing and neither did

I am saying the rules of the game favor conservatives more then anyone else, they can break the rules whenever they want and nothing will happen to them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A&t=645s

Getting rid of the Electoral College is really difficult, so that would be tricky. I do think getting rid of gerrymandering would be easier and I do not think I have seen anyone defend gerrymandering with any sort convincing way, also the abuses we saw in the electoral system in Georgia are worth fighting against.

There is one underappreciated aspect of the electoral college. it offers more protections against crazies in a split election. If no one gets a majority of the electoral vote, it goes to the House. The popular vote compact doesn't offer any such protection if someone gets a plurality, which can happen with a strong independent offering something nasty with narrow appeal.

The effects of gerrymandering are widely exaggerated as are the stories of what happened in Georgia (which has gotten Stacey Abrams national celebrity for refusing to concede.)

I included some links on gerrymandering in an earlier post. The main difference now is that Democrats took back the House, for all the complaints that Republican gerrymandering meant it was impossible.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post3864450

Democrats have made some flat-out untrue arguments about their loss in Georgia.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-stacy-abrams/

The main issue with gerrymandering (aside from some people not knowing what it means and thinking it's any voting system they don't like) is that the ideal hasn't been defined. Should we seek to maintain communities of interest when dividing borders? Should we have completely random geographically contiguous districts? Should we create artificial borders in order to increase the chances that the popular vote will match the outcomes? A problem with that is that populations change, so what works in one election may get skewed results in another (IE- suburban women swung heavily against Republicans after the nomination of Trump, which is the kinf of thing that changes the dynamics of districts.) It'll be a trainwreck if judges and commissions have solutions to different problems.

The US prison population is about 2 million people, double that of China, if one thinks they are all serial killers or terrorists or something, I think one should look at how many nonviolent drug offenders are in prison.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pr...f-slavery/8289

I think you can limit who in prison should vote, but to say everyone in prison has committed a crime that makes them unworthy of voting is a position that should be debated, not assumed, I do not think a healthy legal system should have the highest prison population on the planet.

For all this talk of conservative small government, it seems like conservative politicians want to increase the prison population, probably because they get money from the private prison industry.

The fact that Joe Biden helped the Clintons dramatically increase in the incarceration rate in the 90s is one of many reasons for my dislike of him:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...on-drugs-mass-

Sanders wasn't just arguing that many prisoners should vote; he was saying that the worst prisoners should be allowed to vote. Even if some Democrats will agree with the policy in most cases, many will think there should be some exceptions.

The desire of conservative politicians to be tough on crimes isn't the result of donations from the private prison industry. Crime was a serious problem in the 70s and 80s. Locking up bad people had some positive effects.

[The Overlord]

Wasn't Trump implying he would not accept the outcome of the vote because he was already claiming the whole thing was being rigged against him? That's different. I mean, Trump did criticize the EC back when Obama was re-elected (though Obama won the popular vote then too, right? Not that Trump functions on logic). But either way, preemptively claiming the election is being rigged and thus you will not accept the outcome is different than saying the EC is an outdated and broken system and should be done away with because it does not represent the will of the people.

Also, not saying you do this, because I don't know--but I think it's funny that the majority of people who criticize Hillary or her ardent supporters whenever they mention the specious outcome of the 2016 general or the EC being broken or whatever...those same people are typically the ones who yell the loudest about how Hillary went into every polling booth across the US in the primaries and personally changed votes from Bernie to her because it was her turn to be president, and how Biden, the DNC, Kamala, Cory Booker, CNN, the MSM or whoever, will be rigging the primaries against Bernie again.

Except did she ever say the EC before she lost? If she only opposes after losing it looks like sour grapes, if its matter of principal, she would have had to make that argument before she lost.

I mean, what about her or Biden's policy ideas are better then Sanders or heck Warren for that matter? Why would left wing progressives want the DNC to remain the same center right party the Clintons made it into? How is the third way a good thing at this point?

[JCAll]

I don't even see how SJW is an insult.

Like, I know those on the right have co-opted it to be an insult.

But calling someone a SJW for calling out bigotry...to me, I say, Right on. That's the point.

It's an insult because buttheads on the internet use it as an insult. And everyone who does can be safely ignored. The same with "Millennial".

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Rod and Mueller have been asked to testify. Trump can't block either now.

Whoops ...

Meanwhile, I’ve heard Droopy Dog Barr refused to return to be questioned tomorrow.

[The Overlord]

I'm not as familiar with this situation, and attempts to read about it get into a bit of a rabbit hole, with context that doesn't explain why this person is so terrible. But what did this man do that was so objectionable that supporting a decision to treat him the same as anyone else seeking a spousal visa paints a county party as White Nationalist? This goes several levels beyond disagreement with him, when you suggest that every reasonable person must conclude that not only is he wrong but that he is so vile/ out of bounds that he shouldn't be treated normally by the law.


That's pretty much what most politicians will do when running to follow a morally suspect executive.

We're not going to have the following speech. "The main issue with Donald Trump is that we disagree with his policies. Everything else is pretext. I'm willing to be honest about it. The rest of the field isn't, so they're not fit for the White House. Unless they're running against a Republican. Then I'll support their lying asses over someone pushing for policies that will make the world a worst place."

There is one underappreciated aspect of the electoral college. it offers more protections against crazies in a split election. If no one gets a majority of the electoral vote, it goes to the House. The popular vote compact doesn't offer any such protection if someone gets a plurality, which can happen with a strong independent offering something nasty with narrow appeal.

The effects of gerrymandering are widely exaggerated as are the stories of what happened in Georgia (which has gotten Stacey Abrams national celebrity for refusing to concede.)

I included some links on gerrymandering in an earlier post. The main difference now is that Democrats took back the House, for all the complaints that Republican gerrymandering meant it was impossible.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post3864450

Democrats have made some flat-out untrue arguments about their loss in Georgia.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-stacy-abrams/

The main issue with gerrymandering (aside from some people not knowing what it means and thinking it's any voting system they don't like) is that the ideal hasn't been defined. Should we seek to maintain communities of interest when dividing borders? Should we have completely random geographically contiguous districts? Should we create artificial borders in order to increase the chances that the popular vote will match the outcomes? A problem with that is that populations change, so what works in one election may get skewed results in another (IE- suburban women swung heavily against Republicans after the nomination of Trump, which is the kinf of thing that changes the dynamics of districts.) It'll be a trainwreck if judges and commissions have solutions to different problems.

Other countries do not have gerrymandering and they do fine:

https://www.vox.com/2014/4/15/560428...ow-to-fix-them

I am not saying gerrymandering is a silver bullet that will always get Republicans elected, but I do think it can disfranchise people sometimes and I think there is no good way to justify it.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...gerrymandering

http://www.fairdistrictsohio.org/blo...ling-democracy

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/1...can-democracy/

I defy you to come up with a moral justification for gerrymandering because if you're the only argument is to say ''Meh, some other way to make districts may not work either'', is not a real argument.

Also, why would I trust The National Review to be objective on Georgia issue, it's their interest to underplay this, so the Republicans do this in other states.

I can find articles that say the opposite:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ams-brian-kemp

Also if the EC was supposed to keep radicals out of office, how is that working when race-baiting demagogues like Trump win? To me, that means the EC serves no real purpose anymore.

Sanders wasn't just arguing that many prisoners should vote; he was saying that the worst prisoners should be allowed to vote. Even if some Democrats will agree with the policy in most cases, many will think there should be some exceptions.

The desire of conservative politicians to be tough on crimes isn't the result of donations from the private prison industry. Crime was a serious problem in the 70s and 80s. Locking up bad people had some positive effects.

Crime has been going down since the 90s, why does the US need the largest prison population on the planet? Heck, why is the majority of this prison population made up of minorities?

It seems like you do not want to acknowledge how prisons became big business:

https://www.economist.com/united-sta...ns-for-inmates

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...omplex/304669/

This is why I think this small government argument is a sham, they say there is no money for a better health care system, but there always money for these endless wars, putting people in prison and upper-class tax cuts. How is throwing nonviolent drug offenders in prison good for anyone except for a private prison CEO?

Also, I do not care if corporate Democrats like Biden or the Clintons supported the mass incarceration movement and the prison industrial complex, that just proves they are part of the problem, not the solution.

Also, you think any of Sanders supporters would abandon him over this? What's the worse that's going to happen, serial killers and terrorists will elect politicians that will just release them on them en mass?


I do not have to agree with everything with Sanders on everything, does not change the fact I think someone like him or Warren would be the best choice in terms of policy. Do you agree with conservative politicians and media pundits on everything?

[Gray Lensman]

glad to see that one thing hasn't changed around message boards - the race to call someone a troll and hope it sticks.

I'll still be here to put pins in any more bloated BS that comes down here. Right now I have to go pick up the kids.

What about your own bloated bs? You seem to have more than anyone else currently posting.

[Mister Mets]

A CNN poll suggests Trump's approval rating is going up. Granted, it's not great.

WASHINGTON (CNN)With Robert Mueller's investigation finished, Donald Trump's approval rating stands at its highest level since April 2017 in a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS, as the share who say Democrats in Congress are doing too much to investigate the President rises 6 points.

Trump's approval rating remains largely negative in the new poll -- 52% disapprove and 43% approve -- but that approval figure is the highest -- by one point -- since a CNN poll completed around the 100-day mark of his time in office. At the same time, the share who say they strongly approve of the way the President is handling his job (35%) is at its highest level ever in CNN's polling.

The American public increasingly feels that Democrats in Congress are going too far in investigating the President -- 44% say Democrats are doing too much on that score, up from 38% saying so in March. That shift stems largely from independents, 46% of whom now say congressional Democrats are going too far.

Maryland Governor Larry Hogan has a Super PAC.

Gov. Larry Hogan has what appears to be a super PAC, a development sure to stoke speculation that Maryland’s chief executive might challenge President Trump in the Republican Primary in 2020.

Change Maryland Action Fund bills itself as a political organization that can accept contributions in unlimited amounts. Neither the Federal Election Commission nor the Maryland State Board of Elections were able to track down a statement of organization for the group on Tuesday. But it has begun soliciting contributions as Hogan more closely considers a presidential bid amid a busy national travel schedule. Last week, he was in New Hampshire for the first time as a potential contender.

In an email fundraising appeal issued in April, Change Maryland Action Fund described itself as the “official organization” backing Hogan, saying it was “founded by the governor’s closest friends and supporters.”

A writer suggests that May First should be a day to commemorate the victims of communism.

May Day began as a holiday for socialists and labor union activists, not just communists. But over time, the date was taken over by the Soviet Union and other communist regimes and used as a propaganda tool to prop up their [authority]. I suggest that we instead use it as a day to commemorate those regimes' millions of victims. The authoritative Black Book of Communism estimates the total at 80 to 100 million dead, greater than that caused by all other twentieth century tyrannies combined. We appropriately have a Holocaust Memorial Day. It is equally appropriate to commemorate the victims of the twentieth century's other great totalitarian tyranny. And May Day is the most fitting day to do so….

Our comparative neglect of communist crimes has serious costs. Victims of Communism Day can serve the dual purpose of appropriately commemorating the millions of victims, and diminishing the likelihood that such atrocities will recur. Just as Holocaust Memorial Day and other similar events promote awareness of the dangers of racism, anti-Semitism, and radical nationalism, so Victims of Communism Day can increase awareness of the dangers of left-wing forms of totalitarianism, and government domination of the economy and civil society.

While communism is most closely associated with Russia, where the first communist regime was established, it had equally horrendous effects in other nations around the world. The highest death toll for a communist regime was not in Russia, but in China. Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward was likely the biggest episode of mass murder in the entire history of the world.

In news that isn't partisan, but has policy implications, a study suggests that the show Thirteen Reasons Why coincided with an increase in teen suicides.

When Netflix's 13 Reasons Why was released two years ago, depicting the life of a teenager who decided to take her own life, educators and psychologists warned the program could lead to copycat suicides. Now, a study funded by the National Institutes of Health shows that those concerns may have been warranted.

In the month following the show's debut in March 2017, there was a 28.9% increase in suicide among Americans ages 10-17, said the study, published Monday in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. The number of suicides was greater than that seen in any single month over the five-year period researchers examined. Over the rest of the year, there were 195 more youth suicides than expected given historical trends.

Researchers warn that their study could not prove causation. Some unknown third factor might have been responsible for the increase, they said. Still, citing the strong correlation, they cautioned against exposing children and adolescents to the series.

"The results of this study should raise awareness that young people are particularly vulnerable to the media," study co-author Lisa Horowitz, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Mental Health, said in a statement. "All disciplines, including the media, need to take good care to be constructive and thoughtful about topics that intersect with public health crises."

[Jack Dracula]

I'm good with that. I suppose 'turn the other cheek' was what I am supposed to do, except when it is bigoted, xenophobic, disagreeable...or makes little sense.

I was asked what was wrong with a long, bloated and conflating post posing as "news" and I gave it. I have yet to see a counter argument that is not directed at me.

I don't believe that's intended to be posted as news. Jumping to conclusions seems like a poor quality for an alleged journalist.

glad to see that one thing hasn't changed around message boards - the race to call someone a troll and hope it sticks.

If it quacks like a duck.