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

[aja_christopher]

Mets while I don't find myself in agreement with you most often I think you can give this "study" a pass.

I'm sure you do since the facts disagree with your views -- just like Mets I'm sure you'll do almost anything to protect or deflect from the core racist, sexist, and homophobic values that hold the Republican party together, especially in a time of dwindling voting power due to shifting demographics.

Meanwhile, your Republican president attacks Muslims, Mexicans, and black athletes and immigrants while saying little to nothing about racism, bigotry and xenophobia when white extremists shoot up and burn down black churches, Muslim mosques, and Jewish synagogues.

[Mister Mets]

There's nothing "weird" about it, Mets, in fact it's pretty straightforward -- he used racism, sexism, and xenophobia to revitalize the Republican party.

And now many of those same Republicans are doing everything in their power -- including distorting and destroying our Democracy -- in order to keep this corrupt, lying, racist, sexist, xenophobic individual in power because he has proven through both rhetoric and action that he is one of their (and your) own.

-----
"A NEW STUDY CONFIRMS (AGAIN) THAT RACE, NOT ECONOMICS, DROVE FORMER DEMOCRATS TO TRUMP"

Research on Iowa counties that swung from Obama to Trump indicates that GOP success was driven far more by sexism and racism than by economic anxiety.

"Economic distress is not a significant factor in explaining the shift in Iowa voters from Democrat to Republican between 2008 and 2016," write Iowa State University sociologists Ann Oberhauser, Daniel Krier, and Abdi Kusow. "The election outcomes do not signify [a revolt] among working-class voters left behind by globalization."

Rather, in 2016, "the nativist narrative about 'taking back America' and anti-immigrant sentiment became stronger forces than economic issues," Oberhauser said in announcing the findings."

https://psmag.com/news/new-study-con...crats-to-trump

I'm not entirely sure what point you're arguing with. In case I was unclear, the point was that Trump's rhetoric and tone is where he's not centrist or center-right.

I don't buy the argument that Trump revitalized the Republican party. In purely political terms, the party would probably doing better if someone else had been the nominee in 2016, and there weren't the own goals with Trump. Marco Rubio probably hasn't been caught on tape bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, and John Kasich wouldn't have kicked off an years-long investigation by firing Comey for a refusal to publicly declare his innocence in an international conspiracy. I'll grant that Cruz might have been weaker.

I haven't made any claims here about Democrats who switched to vote for Trump, and that wasn't really part of any of my conversation with The Overlord. It is weird that these racists were willing to back Obama, and these sexists backed him in 2012 after he appointed Kagan and Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

The article's description of the study is deeply problematic since it associates demographic groups with beliefs. It's one thing to say that they don't find a link between economic anxiety and Democrats going to Trump. It's another to suggest that people of particular backgrounds are automatically deeply flawed in specific ways (IE- that white elderly people without college degrees should be regarded as racist and sexist.)

[Tami]

Senator Michael Bennett of Colorado, someone to keep an eye on in the 2020 race to the Presidency.

[InformationGeek]

Look, there had to be a more elegant way of putting this. Also, not a Republican this time.

"Some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or kill them later," Democratic state Rep. John Rogers said Tuesday before the bill's vote in the House, according to video from WVTM-TV. "You bring them into the world unwanted, unloved, then you send them to the electric chair. So you kill them now or you kill them later."

"But the bottom line is that I think we shouldn't be making this decision," he said in arguing against House Bill 314, which would make abortion a felony for doctors with a sentence of up to 99 years in prison.

Rogers' comments came as he argued the House bill's lack of exception for rape or incest is "atrocious."

"I'm not about to be the male to tell a woman what to do with her body," he said. "She has a right to make that decision herself."

CNN has reached out to Rogers.

He defended his statement in an interview with AL.com, arguing that Alabama is "killing people every day" by closing rural hospitals, its high prison homicide rate and lack of Medicaid expansion.
"So why do you want to bring these people in the world and then deny them right to process and live in Alabama?" Rogers said Thursday.

Like, I get what he is saying and the point he is making, but really, there has to be a better way to phrase this argument.

[aja_christopher]

I'm not entirely sure what point you're arguing with. In case I was unclear, the point was that Trump's rhetoric and tone is where he's not centrist or center-right.

I don't buy the argument that Trump revitalized the Republican party.

You're right: the racism, homophobia and xenophobia were already there -- he just jumped in with the Birther movement and rode the wave of racism and Islamophobia to the forefront of the party, further stoking and cementing it with his opening attack on Mexicans and Muslims, which is why it is now more important to Republicans to "build that wall" than to protect our Democracy from Russian interference.

Racism is not some static element -- the same people who vote for Obama in one instance can be drawn to the racist rhetoric of his "rival" in separate election, especially if they feel they are under attack due to "identity politics" and those sentiments are further enflamed by outside influences, like said Russians.

His rhetoric and actions are far-right at best Mets -- he might mask it with thinly veiled diplomacy, but his real political motivations (racism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, homophobia, etc) are obvious to anyone who isn't actively trying to deflect from or ignore them.

-----
"Right-wing populism, a political ideology that often combines laissez-faire capitalism, nationalism, ethnocentrism and anti-elitism, is sometimes described as far-right. Right-wing populism often involves appeals to the "common man" and opposition to immigration. Far-right politics sometimes involves anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable.

Concerning the socio-cultural dimension of nationality, culture and migration, one far-right position is the view that certain ethnic, racial or religious groups should stay separate and it is based on the belief that the interests of one's own group should be prioritised."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

[numberthirty]

So, May just kicked off. There's a Presidential election next year in the fall.

For all the talk about that other countries are meddling in American elections, I'm not really seeing a quickness on getting serious about assessing where weak spots are and if there is time to attempt to address that they are there.

[aja_christopher]

So, May just kicked off. There's a Presidential election next year in the fall.

For all the talk about that other countries are meddling in American elections, I'm not really seeing a quickness on getting serious about assessing where weak spots are and if there is time to attempt to address that they are there.

Of course you don't -- you didn't "vote against" the candidate who actually has a vested interest in allowing Russians (and others who support him) to interfere in our elections, and now he's (of course) doing nothing to prevent it from happening again.

[numberthirty]

Of course you don't -- you didn't "vote against" the candidate who actually has a vested interest in allowing Russians (and others who support him) to interfere in our elections, and now he's (of course) doing nothing to prevent it from happening again.

That post was a little light on actual details.

Are you saying that some part of Congress is on that? If so, how far along are they?

Any sort of a source article you could link to?

[aja_christopher]

That post was a little light on actual details.

How about this "detail" -- you didn't vote "for" the presidential candidate who would have actually tried to do something about election interference.

[numberthirty]

How about this "detail" -- you didn't vote "for" the presidential candidate who would have actually tried to do something about election interference.

So, no actual detail or links on anyone in Congress even attempting to get the ball rolling on looking into how safe American elections are or are not?

[aja_christopher]

So, no actual detail or links on anyone in Congress even attempting to get the ball rolling on looking into how safe American elections are or are not?

Just pointing out that when you had the chance to take a stand against the candidate who openly called for outside interference you didn't -- so now you're pointing at "Congress" instead of taking responsibility for your choices as a voter.

Anyway, here's something else for you to find a way to disparage instead of accepting responsibility for not voting against Trump -- and for Hillary who spoke out against election interference -- when you had the opportunity to do so.

-----
"Senate Democrats and Republicans can agree on perhaps just one thing about special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

But bipartisan legislation to address foreign intrusions is all but dead amid a distinct lack of enthusiasm from Senate GOP leadership and the Trump White House.

At a heated hearing with Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) blasted the White House for blocking the election security bill she co-sponsored with Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) in the previous Congress.

And in an interview, Klobuchar put the blame for the impasse squarely on President Donald Trump’s former White House counsel Don McGahn as well as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...russia-1296865

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...curity-1293068

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ssian-election

[numberthirty]

Just pointing out that when you had the chance to take a stand against the candidate who openly called for outside interference and you didn't -- so now you're pointing at "Congress" instead of taking responsibility for your choices as a voter.

Anyway, here's something else for you to find a way to disparage instead of accepting responsibility for not voting against Trump -- and for Hillary who spoke out against election interference -- when you had the opportunity to do so.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...curity-1293068

Here's the problem with trying to successfully frame this in terms of "Taking Responsibility..."

It is not even remotely unreasonable to guess that some folks who elected Democrats to Congress last fall may very well have done so in an attempt to address getting to the bottom of just how much election interference there was and if there is a path to minimizing it next fall.

Thus far Congress doesn't seem to be taking a whole lot of responsibility on that front. That said, that the clock is ticking is not up for debate. Every day gone by is one they will not have to seriously address it, should they decide to.

Who did or did not take a stand is a largely moot point if the folks elected are seemingly sitting on their hands.

[aja_christopher]

Here's the problem with trying to successfully frame this in terms of "Taking Responsibility..."

The only real problem is that you won't which is why I won't take time arguing this anymore -- you want to complain all day, but never own up to your part in allowing this to happen.

No one can seriously argue that they really care about election interference yet not even bother to vote against the candidate who both denied it's an issue and actively promoted it during the debates, while refusing to vote for the candidate who spoke out against it in that same election just because their chosen candidate lost the primary by millions of votes.

Anyway, you asked for information, I gave it to you, and you disparaged and outright ignored it because it didn't fit your preconceived biases, just as expected.

-----
https://www.politico.com/newsletters...l-today-511242

https://www.axios.com/house-democrat...9962a06ce.html

https://www.cyberscoop.com/election-...m-2018-report/

https://www.nextgov.com/policy/2019/...m-bill/153949/

https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/13/pr...elections-act/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1FY2S5

https://www.mcall.com/news/pennsylva...308-story.html

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/182841...umer-mcconnell

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...718-story.html

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/67...stiff-pushback

https://www.wired.com/story/democrat...erm-elections/

https://www.defensedaily.com/democra...tion-security/

[Xheight]

I'm sure you do since the facts disagree with your views -- just like Mets I'm sure you'll do almost anything to protect or deflect from the core racist, sexist, and homophobic values that hold the Republican party together, especially in a time of dwindling voting power due to shifting demographics.

Meanwhile, your Republican president attacks Muslims, Mexicans, and black athletes and immigrants while saying little to nothing about racism, bigotry and xenophobia when white extremists shoot up and burn down black churches, Muslim mosques, and Jewish synagogues.

My president? Are you not a citizen? Or are you suggesting that I voted for him?

Maybe it is that I understand how he could be our president and not be frothing mad is what bothers some people?

Could it possibly be that I damn the Democrats for being in the pocket of big money just as deep as anyone bearing Republican label so all this sturm und drang of identity politics seems the distraction, a pity and strangely well-deserved.

[SquirrelMan]

My president? Are you not a citizen? Or are you suggesting that I voted for him?

Maybe it is that I understand how he could be our president and not be frothing mad is what bothers some people?

Could it possibly be that I damn the Democrats for being in the pocket of big money just as deep as anyone bearing Republican label so all this sturm und drang of identity politics seems the distraction, a pity and strangely well-deserved.

Oh, "both sides."

I have bingo.