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

[numberthirty]

Can't really say that I like the looks of this one. I guess keeping the seat was never going to be a walk in the park.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...0000-in-6-days

Republican challenging freshman Dem rep says he raised $150,000 in 6 days

[WestPhillyPunisher]

The Trump Administration And Congress Are On A Constitutional Collision Course

Democrats have likened Trump to a king or dictator for refusing to comply with congressional oversight.

**********

White House Rolls Back Regulations Meant To Avoid The Next Deepwater Horizon

The changes are estimated to save the oil industry $824 million over the next decade. And when the next disaster like Deepwater Horizon happens---and, make no mistake, it will---who will compliant Republicans blame? Democrats most likely.

**********

Donald Trump Publicly Suggested DOJ Investigate Joe Biden

Yet Attorney General William Barr fumbled when Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) asked him whether Trump had ever suggested he open an investigation on someone. More proof Droopy Dog Barr is nothing more than a stooge for Trump.

**********

New Faith-Based Trump Rule Lets Doctors Refuse To Perform Abortions and Transitions

Under the administration’s “conscience protections,” health care workers can object to performing procedures on patients for moral or religious reasons. If workers refuse to abide by the Hippocratic Oath in favor of religious beliefs, then GET THE FUCK OUT OF MEDICINE!!!

**********

Texas Senate Advances Bill To Make It Clearer That Guns Are Allowed In Churches

The measure leaves it to houses of worship to determine their own rules on concealed weapons. A real life example of "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition".

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2015, 2016, 2017, as well as 2018, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" published profiles of Alabama State Senator Gerald Allen, who over the past two decades, who repeatedly made revolting anti-gay and anti-Islamic statements, as well as called for fanatical censorship laws to be put in place. As early as 2004, Allen was boasting about meeting President Bush (43) and calling for any book with “positive images of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle” to be banned, including the works of Truman Capote, Gore Vidal, Tennessee Williams, and Alice Walker, claiming that their existence was an “attack on family values” that he compared to Al-Qaeda. When Allen could not get his book ban to pass, he predictably painted himself as a victim of religious persecution. Fast forward to 2011, and Allen was trying to pass Sharia Law bans in Alabama, but when asked what Sharia Law actually was. As a legislator, Gerald Allen has voted to nullify federal firearms laws, shut down all of Alabama’s abortion clinics via trap laws, sponsored fetal heartbeat bills, voted to drug test welfare recipients (always a failed conservative experiment), and voted to prevent the expansion of Medicaid in his home state. For whatever reason (HINT: he’s really racist) back over the summer of 2015 after the mass shooting at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina occurred, when Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley followed the lead of South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and removed a Confederate flag from a monument that stood at the north side of Alabama’s own state capitol, Gerald Allen responded to sponsor SB 13, to make it HARDER to remove Confederate iconography from around the state. He then defended his legislation as you’d expect from a man who likes to portray himself the victim when confronted about being any kind of a bigot, saying, "There is a revisionist movement afoot to cover over many parts of American history. Our national and state history should be remembered as it happened. The politically-correct movement to strike whole periods of the past from our collective memory is divisive and unnecessary." Gerald Allen made it a point in 2017 to make sure the landmarks of the Confederacy would not be taken down, and to continue to honor a failed rebellion fought against the federal government over the desire to continue to own other human beings, sponsoring legislation to keep those monuments to it in place. Y’know, important issues that were in no way resolved really 150 years ago. In fact, just prior to that bill passing around the end of May 2017, Allen commented on the bill, saying that he hoped it would end “the wave of political correctness” that he feels so victimized by. With public opinion starting to turn in favor of gun control in the wake of several mass shootings including the one in Parkland, Florida, Gerald Allen has also been paying lip service to doing something about ‘mental health” to prevent gun violence.

Gerald Allen coasted to re-election in 2018, and has gone back to work in the Alabama sta te legislature filing disturbingly conservative legislation, this time sponsoring a bill that would eliminate the requirement that you need to apply for a permit for concealed carry of handguns, and instead just letting everyone do it if they want. We have no idea when he’ll get around to doing anything about that “mental health” problem he claims is causing an increase in gun violence, though.

[Tami]

Dear Republicans: Stop using my father, Ronald Reagan, to justify your silence on Trump

Dear Republican Party,

I have never been part of you, but you have been part of my family for decades. I was 10 years old when my father decided to stop being a Democrat and instead become a Republican. From that point on, you were a frequent guest at our dinner table — and an unwelcome one to me. I wanted to talk about my science project on the human heart, or the mean girls at school who teased me for being too tall and for wearing glasses. Instead, much of the conversation was about how the government was taking too much out of people’s paychecks for taxes and how it was up to the Republicans to keep government from getting too big.

You have claimed his legacy, exalted him as an icon of conservatism and used the quotes of his that serve your purpose at any given moment. Yet at this moment in America’s history when the democracy to which my father pledged himself and the Constitution that he swore to uphold, and did faithfully uphold, are being degraded and chipped away at by a sneering, irreverent man who traffics in bullying and dishonesty, you stay silent.

You stay silent when President Trump speaks of immigrants as if they are trash, rips children from the arms of their parents and puts them in cages. Perhaps you’ve forgotten that my father said America was home “for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness.”

My father called America “the shining city on a hill.” Trump sees America as another of his possessions that he can slap his name on. A president is not supposed to own America. He or she is supposed to serve the American people.

[Tami]

The 2019 governor's race that has Trump's team sweating

Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin is a presidential phone-buddy and White House regular who’s become one of President Donald Trump’s loudest surrogates.

He’s also one of the most unpopular governors in the country, facing a treacherous reelection in November. And the White House, fearing that an embarrassing loss in a deep-red state would stoke doubts about the president’s own ability to win another term, is preparing to go all-in to save him.

The Trump team has watched with growing concern as Bevin’s approval ratings have plummeted to the low 30s. With the presidential campaign kicking into gear, the Kentucky governor’s race is likely to be the most closely-watched contest in the run-up to 2020, and Trump aides acknowledge alarm bells will go off if one of the president’s closest allies loses in a state that Trump won by nearly 30 percentage points.

The governor’s plight has caused unease across the party. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who defeated Bevin in a bitter 2014 primary, has put aside the past rivalry and instructed his political team to be helpful to the governor in any way he wants. Aides to both men have been in touch.

McConnell, who wields a formidable political apparatus in the state, has much at stake in the governor’s race. Like Trump, the GOP leader is on the ballot in 2020 and a Bevin loss could further energize Democrats who are eager to take McConnell down.

[Mister Mets]

The 2019 governor's race that has Trump's team sweating

As a bonus for Democrats, a close Bevin win means a potential Senate candidate who doesn't have to introduce him/herself to the state.

[The Overlord]

I'm enjoying the discussion but I can't respond to every point (IE- you brought up single-payer a bit out of the blue.)

Trump's weird. He's not that right-wing in policy and centrist in some stuff. It's more about rhetoric and tone. Despite years as a member of other parties (there was periods when he was a registered Democrat, as well as a registered Independent and member of the reform party) is making an effort to adapt to the Republican party after essentially winning an independent campaign for the party's nomination.

Except I do not think Trump is a bug, I think he is a feature, I think he is the end result of the GOP's Southern Strategy and the dog whistles they have been using since the 60s. Trump won because he played on the fact that a lot of the GOP's base, are xenophobic.

Steve King was part of the GOP for a long time and only now when he brought too much heat on the GOP, they decide to punish him and I think you think bigotry in the GOP is limited to a few bad actors like King, I think you are mistaken:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...114-story.html

The issue isn't whether gerrymandering would be a good idea if we were coming up with a political system from scratch. That ship sailed in 1812 when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry came up with a method for redrawing districts for partisan advantage, and was nominated as James Madison's Vice President. Comparisons to other western democracies don't quite work, since we've got to shift away from the existing system at a contentious partisan time. This poses new challenges.

The question is about what we replace gerrymandering with, and my main point is that we need some kind of clear standards for the ideal method of dividing districts, so that whatever independent commissions are formed have a clear idea of what to do, which will also help with the inevitable and necessary judicial review process.

Except I care about solutions to problems, to me the whole ''the alternative could be worse'' argument is not compelling. There can be details that can be worked out over time when crafting a solution, but to me, unless you can make the argument that justifies gerrymandering is better than ''the alternative could be worse'', I stand by my gerrymandering is bad for democracy and should be done away with. Just because its been around since 1812, does not make it a good thing.

There are some different arguments here. It is one thing to say that the process is unfair and should be changed in the future. It's another to argue it was stolen.

My impression of Lowry and the National Review is that they act in good faith. There are similarly plenty of the left who have their own blind spots, and will present more positive spin on stories, but won't try to actively mislead readers. I'm open to any piece that suggests Lowry was making arguments that were objectively wrong, and am aware that there are many on the left who would be eager to highlight the inaccuracies of a prominent Republican. I'm unaware of it happening in this case.

His comments do match the local reporting I've checked out on the race.

You can trust Rich Lowery and the National Review if you want, I don't have to. I have good reasons to think this article is filled with spin, I think the article is promoting an agenda, its not just reporting the facts.

You can prove anything in that Seattle Times article is wrong? If not, then we are at an impasse.

It may be a bad idea for the person in charge of state elections to be a statewide officeholder who can run for other offices as well, but we can't change that after the fact. We can make a new effort at it going forward.

I think you are forgetting that a lot of people complained while the election was going on, To me it's completely logical to complain about injustice in the system while these injustices are being perpetrated. MLK was protesting how the system was being enacted back in the 60s, he has every right to complain about the system back, even if Jim Crow was the law of the land at the time. Ditto for the Georgia election.

I do think the focus on Kemp being Secretary of State ignores that Democrats did nominate the Secretary of State for Georgia relatively recently, the Secretary of State of Kansas lost the race for Governor, and that even if the Secretary of State were not allowed to seek another office, they would still have a preferred outcome in the election.

You may sometimes be arguing against points I'm not making (I don't think I said the process is good.)

But what's your argument then, that the election wasn't stolen? I can't prove with absolute certainty was stolen, but you can honestly say there is no argument wasn't stolen?

https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...mp-chuck-todd/

The National Review article interviewed the election officials who were working for Kemp to say it's fair, but of course, they would say that they have vested interest in saying that, them saying that, doesn't make it true and the National Review not digging any deeper than that, proves their bias.

Also, we all know different States have differnent election rules, maybe the rules in Georgia make it easier to game the system then the rules in Kansas or maybe Kemp is smarter then Kobach.

I'm currently not taking the investigation of Kemp seriously since the explanation of why the Democratic controlled House would investigate a Republican Governor can come down to simple partisanship.

I didn't say anything about the Seattle Times piece because it hadn't been mentioned or linked yet. The writer doesn't pretend to be neutral, as a poll watcher for the Democratic party. He does note that the problems weren't fraudulent or illegal, and that the solution is to fix things going forward.

What makes your article better then any article I can post that makes the opposite case? Because I have posted 2 already (3 with this posting) and so far all you have done is dismiss with far less work then I have done attacking that National Review article. If you can't address what is said in those articles, then I wonder how you can say the Georgia Election problem was overblown. Also why would Kemp want to fix the system, when he was the one using its loopholes to his advantage?

I haven't said I'm in favor of private prisons. I'm not sure opposition to that fixes the problem. The idea that the GOP's main reason for supporting incarceration is donations suggests that if prison reform types offered more money, the problem would go away. But if every prison was state-run, we'd still have major incentives to keep things going (prison employees would be a major voting bloc, voters don't like crime.)

You brought up a lot of topics that haven't been addressed.

How can the prison reform movement beat the private prison movement in terms of money? To me, the private prison industry winning this due to having more money is a sign of corruption. How much money do these private prisons save the taxpayers and how are they good if their business model involves keeping people in prison as long as they can?

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...ent-experiment

Give these people different jobs, rather having people earn living off keeping nonviolent drug offenders in prison forever. You are describing a Keynesian make-work project, we can create jobs and make society better, rather than worse, through infrastructure projects.

Again, how is small government, how much it cost to maintain this giant prison population, that sounds supremely wasteful.

My comments about Sanders were more about my views than anyone else's. I do suspect the country's best chance of getting a nominee like him in is enough voters dislike the Republican, so I'm happy that situation seems less likely.

On party shifts, it can be complicated. I'm unaware of 1970s moderate Republicans backing late-term abortion and gay marriage. In what ways have conservatives become more far-right?

I think the conservative movement has more actively become more xenophobic today, the supposed small government party wants to waste a ton of money on a stupid border wall and Trump's Muslim ban (that's what he called it during the election, so I am sticking with it).

You have children in cages on the border, it's hard not to see that the GOP is a far-right xenophobic party, after that. You have guys like Stephen Miller in positions of power.

Just because Biden is for abortion, does not make him a left winger, he seems fairly right on economics, foreign policy, law, and order, etc. To me if you want for a center-right guy, vote for Biden, Trump is the far right xenophobic choice.

Personally, I think Bernie would change for the better more then Biden would and frankly Trump speaks for himself at this point.

[Xheight]

I think the conservative movement has more actively become more xenophobic today, the supposed small government party wants to waste a ton of money on a stupid border wall and Trump's Muslim ban (that's what he called it during the election, so I am sticking with it).

You have children in cages on the border, it's hard not to see that the GOP is a far-right xenophobic party, after that. You have guys like Stephen Miller in positions of power.

Just because Biden is for abortion, does not make him a left winger, he seems fairly right on economics, foreign policy, law, and order, etc. To me if you want for a center-right guy, vote for Biden, Trump is the far right xenophobic choice.

Personally, I think Bernie would change for the better more then Biden would and frankly Trump speaks for himself at this point.

I am sure Mets will offer his own patient reply but to my view that is not inconsistent with a party that sees one of the few constitutional mandates as being national security. Yes, the rhetoric has changed but much in the way that supposed shaming strategies have failed so has the way things are said. Say xenophobic often enough and it does not matter for people who see something else going on for it to matter. I think that the Bernie has not engaged very much in the heat of such dismiss-able rhetoric is a credit to the ideas of the candidate if it also worrisome about traction with where the base is now.

[Xheight]

Except the national security mandate contradicts the small government mandate, you can't have small government and waste a trillion dollars in some ''adventure'' in Iraq or the government spying on people, the national security mandate makes the small government irrelevant. Where in the constitution does it say the US must spend more than the next 8 countries combined on the military? Does anyone really think there is no pork or waste in the military? How are conservatives supposed to reduce government spending when they insist on this level of military spending? Also how this wall not a giant waste of money? This why I have no use for the supposed small government ideology, it has so many loopholes and expectations that it's worthless, IMO, the government can start pointless wars, spy on citizens and have the largest prison population, but it cannot help the poor, improve infrastructure or make a better health care system.

Either these contradictions are due to massive incompetence or they are done on purpose and I would bet on the latter at this point, big government is okay with them as long it promotes a hierarchy they like, everything else is white noise.

Also, my purpose is not to shame, its simply to state the truth as I see it, the GOP has a xenophobic element in it, whether one is shamed by that or not is not my concern, either its there or its not and I think its hard to argue that its not there at this point. As they say ''if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a duck''. If the GOP supports xenophobic policies and has xenophobic members it's xenophobic, whether that shames someone or not, is their business, but this is why I do not like the GOP, to deny this is to deny the truth, IMO.

When it comes to military adventures abroad I see your point but that is a whole other thread on the effects of 9/11. In many ways the actual territory of the U.S. is in question with a wall so the argument is a steeper one and again then dependent on the word xenophobic being used as a slur and not something descriptive like in a book I cited the other day spoken about in the New Yorker called “Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities,” by Eric Kaufmann.

Yes, I have a problem with Big Military(as more people should questioning it being itself a welfare state of sorts) as that also lends itself to Big Police State all too well but why adopt the rhetoric when it does not work and go on hoping that somehow this mythic moral Majority will be on the right side of history and all the other transcendental BS?

[BeastieRunner]

Beastie's Cartoons of the Week

[Malvolio]

The Trump Administration And Congress Are On A Constitutional Collision Course

Democrats have likened Trump to a king or dictator for refusing to comply with congressional oversight.

**********

White House Rolls Back Regulations Meant To Avoid The Next Deepwater Horizon

The changes are estimated to save the oil industry $824 million over the next decade. And when the next disaster like Deepwater Horizon happens---and, make no mistake, it will---who will compliant Republicans blame? Democrats most likely.

**********

Donald Trump Publicly Suggested DOJ Investigate Joe Biden

Yet Attorney General William Barr fumbled when Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) asked him whether Trump had ever suggested he open an investigation on someone. More proof Droopy Dog Barr is nothing more than a stooge for Trump.

**********

New Faith-Based Trump Rule Lets Doctors Refuse To Perform Abortions and Transitions

Under the administration’s “conscience protections,” health care workers can object to performing procedures on patients for moral or religious reasons. If workers refuse to abide by the Hippocratic Oath in favor of religious beliefs, then GET THE FUCK OUT OF MEDICINE!!!

**********

Texas Senate Advances Bill To Make It Clearer That Guns Are Allowed In Churches

The measure leaves it to houses of worship to determine their own rules on concealed weapons. A real life example of "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition".

I don't really see what the problem is with these "faith-based" doctors. I mean, abortions and transition surgery are specialties to begin with. You don't go to a GP for those procedures. So I would think any "faith-based" doctor would never learn how to perform an abortion or a sex change operation in the first place.

[Dalak]

I don't really see what the problem is with these "faith-based" doctors. I mean, abortions and transition surgery are specialties to begin with. You don't go to a GP for those procedures. So I would think any "faith-based" doctor would never learn how to perform an abortion or a sex change operation in the first place.

It also lets off pharmacists who don't want to prescribe medications necessary for any of those procedures, and probably will lead to them trying to allow doctors and the rest to refuse to treat those they morally object to at all.

[The Overlord]

When it comes to military adventures abroad I see your point but that is a whole other thread on the effects of 9/11. In many ways the actual territory of the U.S. is in question with a wall so the argument is a steeper one and again then dependent on the word xenophobic being used as a slur and not something descriptive like in a book I cited the other day spoken about in the New Yorker called “Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities,” by Eric Kaufmann.

I defy anyone to come up with a well thought out explanation on how this wall will accomplish anything positive, it such an oversimplified solution to a complex problem, it seems like the kind of thing a child would come up with. But I can find several articles debunking the effectiveness of this wall:

https://qz.com/1520651/border-patrol...all-wont-work/

https://www.wired.com/story/congress...y-border-tech/

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...erous-illusion

Its a waste of money, it will damage the environment on the border regions, the government will have to seize people's property on the border and what does it do to justify all of this?

Yes, I have a problem with Big Military(as more people should questioning it being itself a welfare state of sorts) as that also lends itself to Big Police State all too well but why adopt the rhetoric when it does not hoping that somehow this mythic moral Majority will be on the right side of history and all the other transcendental BS?

Who says I am doing any of that, I do not care if my views will create ''mythic moral Majority will be on the right side of history and all the other transcendental BS'', I am supporting what I think is right, regardless whether its popular or not. Telling the truth is not always easy or popular, I will say my piece and anyone can accept or reject it.

There was a time that I did think conservatives acted in good faith and maybe were just misguided on a few things, but after George W. Bush, we got Trump, the GOP got worse, not better and my view of them soured, there could still be good conservatives, but that does not mean I see any moral or intellectual value in the ideology itself at this point. To me I think contradictions in their ideology are purposeful, I think the small government stuff is a sham. I am supposed to believe that conservatives always drive up the debt by mistake when they get into power? Yeah right.

[Xheight]

I defy anyone to come up with a well thought out explanation on how this wall will accomplish anything positive, it such an oversimplified solution to a complex problem, it seems like the kind of thing a child would come up with. But I can find several articles debunking the effectiveness of this wall:

https://qz.com/1520651/border-patrol...all-wont-work/

https://www.wired.com/story/congress...y-border-tech/

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...erous-illusion

Its a waste of money, it will damage the environment on the border regions, the government will have to seize people's property on the border and what does it do to justify all of this?

I am to believe that the Wall is only a good if it is a substantial and practical material obstacle? It is obviously also a message to both citizen and non-citizen that a relaxed history of border immigration is over. Scaring people away is a positive. Assuring people that the government is responsive to issues that arise from long standing problems and concerns is positive. Knocking down cheap labor is a positive if fewer come to this country. I can't believe you have not heard something like this before. The insistence on only the practical seems to many like an insistence on the perfect solution. So again we get back to Rhetoric which is tactical.

Who says I am doing any of that, I do not care if my views will create ''mythic moral Majority will be on the right side of history and all the other transcendental BS'', I am supporting what I think is right, regardless whether its popular or not. Telling the truth is not always easy or popular, I will say my piece and anyone can accept or reject it.

It looks like I was not being clear for the sake of brevity. I think a mistake to have a sense that there is some moral wheel of history that is inexorably moving forward in the struggle of the classes and that further think America is in the vanguard of that or should be. As to telling what you believe to be true - I can respect and even argue with it and all to the good. I do think you would grant that these are complex issues that ideological and political labels don't solve in-themselves. I noted that book becuse it seems to take a complex view of the entangled 'givens' of our debates about race, class and politics.

There was a time that I did think conservatives acted in good faith and maybe were just misguided on a few things, but after George W. Bush, we got Trump, the GOP got worse, not better and my view of them soured, there could still be good conservatives, but that does not mean I see any moral or intellectual value in the ideology itself at this point. To me I think contradictions in their ideology are purposeful, I think the small government stuff is a sham. I am supposed to believe that conservatives always drive up the debt by mistake when they get into power? Yeah right.

I think you are being imprecise here mixing Republican and conservative which has a party in some states. I never placed faith so much in an ideology like small government belonging to either party because they are so selective about it. I do think local is better for democracy to work and knock down when power starts to corrupt.

[jetengine]

"Small government" and "Nation that can fit 40 UKs in" go together about as well you'd think.

You either keep your superpower status or you effectively become multiple mini nations since you cant actually function.