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

[Gray Lensman]

1. her policies were not that centrist, she had probably the most progressive platform of any candidate for the two big parties in any election.

2. Getting more votes than any other candidate other than Obama the first time means her platform was popular.

Your entire premise is flawed on multiple levels. It's like a multiple level premise flaw. I wonder if there is a cool side mission it unlocks.

Hilary probably suffered in the first regard from association with Bill - who actually was a huge step back towards the center for the Democratic Party during his heyday.

[The Overlord]

So, I don't see an answer to my question: What is Clinton still doing to stand in the way of progress? I ask because almost the only ones I see holding them up as a symbol in politics today are the ones trying to prosecute/investigate her. The rest who bring up the name Clinton are trying to talk up their chosen candidate in regards to people who are only tangentially involved nowadays.

Unlike Biden who's actively trying to excuse people for their shitty judgement and petulant behavior, I haven't noticed anything from them so I'm curious to see if you do.

BTW: Every time you represent Clinton's loss as some sort of judgement on/by the Dems without acknowledging all the other fingers on that scale it makes your arguments seem more and more desperate.

You are assuming a personal motive exists and not looking at the context of what I said:

''Corporate Democrats like Clinton, Biden, Booker, etc are standing in the way progress, they should stand aside if they actually want to improve things.''

I did not single her out, I lumped her with a bunch of politicians who I think have the same ideological outlook, I do not care about these people as individuals, I care about what they represent. Hillary Clinton represents the previous failed corporate Democrat bid for power, Biden and Booker represent the current one , I bring her up to show why I think why that plan failed in 2016 and why I think it will fail again if Biden or Booker tries it if they win.

All of the corporate Democrats stand in the way of progress and they should all stand aside, is that general enough for you?

BTW: Do you think using Russia as an excuse to absolve Clinton of her flaws and mistakes a good idea. Unless you have a sure fire way to stop Russia, you should stop focusing on that and focus want she did wrong and not repeat her mistakes.

What is more important, focusing on the best policies or obsessing over Russia when there is not much you can do about that?

I think Russia put their thumb on the scale for Trump, but the Dems incompetence let them get hacked and I think her own mistakes cost more then anything else. Russia did not force her to ignore states like Michigan. Trump has easily beatable despite Russian interference and just blaming Russia absolves her of any personal responsibility and doing that ensures those same mistakes will be repeated.

I do not hate her, but I will use her as an example of what not to do next time. I do not care if she is not in politics anymore, the fact she refuses to take responsibility for her mistakes and owns up to them, makes her someone you can point to as part of the failed past in contrast to people like Sanders, Warren AOC, etc who represent a better, brighter future.

To me, not trying to learn anything from the 2016 election and blaming everything on Russia, is extremely foolish.

[Dalak]

You are assuming a personal motive exists and not looking at the context of what I said:

''Corporate Democrats like Clinton, Biden, Booker, etc are standing in the way progress, they should stand aside if they actually want to improve things.''

I did not single her out, I lumped her with a bunch of politicians who I think have the same ideological outlook, I do not care about these people as individuals, I care about what they represent. Hillary Clinton represents the previous failed corporate Democrat bid for power, Biden and Booker represent the current one , I bring her up to show why I think why that plan failed in 2016 and why I think it will fail again if Biden or Booker tries it if they win.

All of the corporate Democrats stand in the way of progress and they should all stand aside, is that general enough for you?

BTW: Do you think using Russia as an excuse to absolve Clinton of her flaws and mistakes a good idea. Unless you have a sure fire way to stop Russia, you should stop focusing on that and focus want she did wrong and not repeat her mistakes.

What is more important, focusing on the best policies or obsessing over Russia when there is not much you can do about that?

I think Russia put their thumb on the scale for Trump, but the Dems incompetence let them get hacked and I think her own mistakes cost more then anything else. Russia did not force her to ignore states like Michigan. Trump has easily beatable despite Russian interference and just blaming Russia absolves her of any personal responsibility and doing that ensures those same mistakes will be repeated.

I do not hate her, but I will use her as an example of what not to do next time. I do not care if she is not in politics anymore, the fact she refuses to take responsibility for her mistakes and owns up to them, makes her someone you can point to as part of the failed past in contrast to people like Sanders, Warren AOC, etc who represent a better, brighter future.

To me, not trying to learn anything from the 2016 election and blaming everything on Russia, is extremely foolish.

1) Bringing up someone repeatedly without being prompted implies some sort of focus, (conscious or not) whether or not they are singled out.

2) "All The Thumbs" doesn't focus on Russia, or mention Russia specifically. I've been consistent in saying that anyone focusing on any one thing as the cause of 2016 is willfully ignoring reality. Said reality being Comey, Voter Supression, Media Focus, Russia, Voters willing to accept BS because they agree with it, etc.

3) We can do something about the misinformation spread by Russian trolls, politically motivated fakers, and/or bots by pointing it out and actively debunking it.

4) Refuses to take responsibility?

Nevertheless, many appear deaf to her words of acknowledgement: From political analysts to president Trump himself, the rumor has taken hold that Hillary Clinton blames everyone but herself.

With her book launch, that false narrative has taken center stage, propelled by critics who seem outraged that Clinton thinks her electoral college defeat can be explained by factors in addition to herself. Clinton “seeks to exonerate herself,” her book is a “long list of who Hillary Clinton blames,” and she is wasting an opportunity to go away and, therefore, be missed, they claim.

Perhaps they have not read the book. Hillary Clinton blames herself at least 35 times in What Happened. She apologizes for her mistakes, she apologizes for not apologizing, she even reports past apologies for mistakes she’d made before becoming the Democratic party candidate.

5) If I've learned anything from 2016, it's that the obsession with the name Clinton won't die no matter how many years pass. That and focusing on one candidate to the detriment of the country is the worst strategy.

[numberthirty]

1. her policies were not that centrist, she had probably the most progressive platform of any candidate for the two big parties in any election.

2. Getting more votes than any other candidate other than Obama the first time means her platform was popular.

Your entire premise is flawed on multiple levels. It's like a multiple level premise flaw. I wonder if there is a cool side mission it unlocks.

Hilary probably suffered in the first regard from association with Bill - who actually was a huge step back towards the center for the Democratic Party during his heyday.

There, I would have to agree.

It's hard to separate your campaign from Bill's time in office being a move back to center when he is out stumping for your campaign defending said centrist platform in front of Black Lives Matter.

[numberthirty]

BTW: Do you think using Russia as an excuse to absolve Clinton of her flaws and mistakes a good idea. Unless you have a sure fire way to stop Russia, you should stop focusing on that and focus want she did wrong and not repeat her mistakes.

What is more important, focusing on the best policies or obsessing over Russia when there is not much you can do about that?

I think Russia put their thumb on the scale for Trump, but the Dems incompetence let them get hacked and I think her own mistakes cost more then anything else. Russia did not force her to ignore states like Michigan. Trump has easily beatable despite Russian interference and just blaming Russia absolves her of any personal responsibility and doing that ensures those same mistakes will be repeated.

Here, I tend to agree.

What you will actually have control of should be your primary focus. While I'm not going to say "Put zero effort into outside interference as a secondary focus.", a vote that you have secured based on sticking to the primary focus is a vote that you will be more likely to be able to count on.

The one upside is that I don't honestly believe that any of the current Democratic primary candidates will be looking to repeat those mistakes this time out.

[ed2962]

That was kind of my point, all these supposedly progressively minded Europeans suddenly turned to xenophobia and fascism the minute they were exposed to a mere trickle of migration from the outside, and start spewing the kind of vile propaganda about rampaging hordes of dark skinned brutes menacing poor innocent white girls that's more at home in the Reconstruction South than in the happy, cultured, social democratic welfare states that European countries are supposed to be.

That's fair. I guess my thing is that while Europe is more progressive in terms of social safety nets and other programs, I never thought of them as that much more progressive in terms of race. US neo-Nazi copied the look of their neo-Nazis (who copied their look from non-racists many of whom were black, but that's a whole 'nother topic), people in the UK go on about "the Pakis" the same way that Yanks go on about "the mexicians," and anti-Semitism never totally went away there. And while actual Communist run for office there, actual open Fascist do as well and this has been going on for years.

[ed2962]

He first considered running for President in 1984. He may have some policy disagreements with Warren and Sanders, but he also has thought he'd make a good President for a long long time.

Sure. But right now he's not even talking about policy, he's talking about how he has no empathy for young people.

[ed2962]

Here, I tend to agree.

What you will actually have control of should be your primary focus. While I'm not going to say "Put zero effort into outside interference as a secondary focus.", a vote that you have secured based on sticking to the primary focus is a vote that you will be more likely to be able to count on.

The one upside is that I don't honestly believe that any of the current Democratic primary candidates will be looking to repeat those mistakes this time out.

A couple of them are coming up with new ones!

[PwrdOn]

That's fair. I guess my thing is that while Europe is more progressive in terms of social safety nets and other programs, I never thought of them as that much more progressive in terms of race. US neo-Nazi copied the look of their neo-Nazis (who copied their look from non-racists many of whom were black, but that's a whole 'nother topic), people in the UK go on about "the Pakis" the same way that Yanks go on about "the mexicians," and anti-Semitism never totally went away there. And while actual Communist run for office there, actual open Fascist do as well and this has been going on for years.

Well there's a sort of grander point about the socioeconomic development of the entire Western world to be made there. These values of freedom, equality, tolerance, and all that only really came about because the flood of stolen wealth from colonies made competition for resources between whites less of a pressing concern, allowing them to develop a flatter and less hierarchical social structure. In America, whites could hardly go outside without constant reminders that their entire economic system was dependent on hypocrisy and exploitation, and so people quickly learned to pull back on any talk of justice and progress lest those darkies get any ideas. But in Europe, most people never actually visited the colonies or encountered the people whose labor and resources their lifestyles were dependent on, so many people truly believed that it was the superiority of Western culture and values that was responsible for their prosperity, and thus sought to push the boundaries of these liberalizing ideas in a much more radical direction. Now that many of these formerly colonized people have arrived in Europe trying to claim their share of the pie, Europeans are faced with the uncomfortable dilemma of having to choose between their high-minded liberal values and their standard of living, because ideas of equality that may have sounded good when they were the oppressed underclass don't seem too appealing when you are cast as the greedy exploiter.

[Tami]

Trump backers applaud Warren in heart of MAGA country

KERMIT, W. Va. — It was a startling spectacle in the heart of Trump country: At least a dozen supporters of the president — some wearing MAGA stickers — nodding their heads, at times even clapping, for liberal firebrand Elizabeth Warren.

The sighting alone of a Democratic presidential candidate in this town of fewer than 400 people — in a county where more than four in five voters cast their ballot for Trump in 2016 — was unusual. Warren’s team was apprehensive about how she’d be received.

About 150 people gathered at the Kermit Fire & Rescue Headquarters Station to hear the Massachusetts senator and former Harvard professor talk about what she wants to do to fight the opioid epidemic. Trump-supporting college students in baggy t-shirts, housewives in pearls, and the fire chief dressed in uniform joined liberal retirees wearing rainbow “Persist” shirts and teachers with six-figure student loan debt.

[Tami]

Ivanka Trump Tweets, Then Deletes, Photo with ‘National Security Strategy’ Document

First daughter and White House adviser Ivanka Trump tweeted a photo of herself with World Bank President David Malpass, with the cover of a document titled “National Security Strategy” visible in the image. She subsequently deleted and then reposted the photograph with that document cropped out, raising questions about why she did that.

Trump on Sunday night tweeted the photo showing her and Malpass, full body, with the cover of the national security strategy document on a small table in the foreground.

“Great catching up with my friend @WorldBank President David Malpass and discussing the Women Entrepreneurs Finance Initiative (We-Fi),” she wrote in the tweet.

On Thursday afternoon, journalist Luke O’Neil noted on Twitter that Trump had since deleted the post. O’Neil shared screenshots of the post before the first daughter deleted it, including one zoomed in on the national security strategy document.

[Tami]

How gullible can you get?

A group raised over $20 million to ‘build the wall.’ Now its supporters want answers.

A December fundraising campaign brought in more than $20 million over the course of a few weeks, its thousands of donors united by a common goal: the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, oft-promised by President Trump.

Some four months later, a contingent of those supporters is ready to see what their money has built.

The now-famous border wall GoFundMe was conceived by Purple Heart recipient Brian Kolfage, who wrote at the time he was upset by “too many illegals . . . taking advantage of the United States taxpayers,” and the “political games from both parties” when it came to border security. Kolfage, a triple amputee, pressed onward despite falling short of his $1 billion goal — launching a nonprofit to build portions of the wall on private land for a “fraction of what it costs the government.”

[Tami]

Tug-of-Love: Immigrant Mom Loses Effort to Regain Son Given to US Parents

In a controversial case that involved the rights of illegal immigrants and their young children, a Guatemalan mother lost her effort today to get back the five-year old son who was taken away from her after her arrest on immigration charges and put up for adoption in Missouri despite her objections.

A Missouri judge ruled the boy should stay with the Missouri couple, Melinda and Seth Moser, who took him into their home five years ago while his mother was in federal custody, where she attempted in vain to oppose the adoption proceedings.

[Tami]

Russian lawyer obtained Hill hearing seat from former Florida Trump campaign chair's husband

The husband of the former Florida chair of the Trump campaign obtained a front-row seat to a June 2016 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing for Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian attorney who had met with Donald Trump Jr. at Trump Tower eight days prior.

Lanny Wiles, the husband of former Florida campaign chair Susie Wiles, saved the prominent seat for Veselnitskaya at the June 14 hearing on “U.S. Policy Toward Putin’s Russia,” ABC News has confirmed.

Photos and video of Veselnitskaya at the hearing show her seated directly behind Michael McFaul, former United States ambassador to Russia from 2012-2014.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

How gullible can you get?

A group raised over $20 million to ‘build the wall.’ Now its supporters want answers.

This would be supremely laughable if it wasn’t so damn pathetic. That Kolfage guy sounds like a graduate of the Donald Trump School of Thievery and Grifting, because it’s clear he conned all those gullible idiots.