All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Striderblack01]

What do you agree with me about?

I didn't say anything about feelings not mattering in politics, my argument is that feelings is not what solely defines politics. This isn't therapy, this is about getting elected and making policies law. Which require immense planning and being able to win over millions of people. If you're not concerned about the latter what are you following politics for?

Again, didn't say they did but you've shown little concern about policing your own side when they put us all in danger. Tankies aren't your friends, they're sabotaging your own movement and putting the blame on the opposition. Don't normalise their behaviour or they will be the face of your movement. Why should anyone think otherwise if you're ok letting them speak for you?

Every primary is a tough primary. They do, but you can't expect everyone to simmer down, when all that will lead to is the nominee being sabotaged and Trump winning another term. Those are the stakes.

What are you going to do about it?

What's worrying is that your response didn't acknowledge the left's priority to get better running campaigns. Like it's not a concern worth trying to fix. You've has two elections now running for president, it's on the left to get the results it wants. It's a struggle, the left aren't entitled to anything in politics. You want something, you're going to have to fight for it.

I think bad feelings lead to bad election nights.
Which is why, if the tenor of these types of online conversations doesn't improve, November is looking particularly troubling for the Democrats.

---

Story time!

Once upon a time, I worked Tech Support at Apple for a few months.
I didn't like it - I tend to internalize criticism. Was convinced I was headed for some kind of breakdown, then walked off after a tough call.

Anyway.

They used to tell us "Fix the real problem".
They meant the caller -- specifically, their feelings of anger and frustration.

If they're too angry, they can't listen to you.
If they're not listening to you, they can't hear your instructions.
If they can't hear your instructions, they can't follow them to resolve their issue.
And if their issue isn't solved, they're not gonna buy anything from you.

You fix the "real" problem by establishing a rapport, being empathetic, listening, being kind, etc.
It's a deceptively tough job. There's a lot juggling and managing of feelings.

Even though it wasn't for me, I still saw how it could be rewarding.
You enter a tough situation, there's conflict, but you calmly step in and work together to solve a problem.
When it goes well, it feels good.

I think we need more of that right now.
I don't see the wisdom in attacking voters that we need.
We need to console Progressives, and then sell them on Joe Biden.

---

So let's look at some of the language used in our conversation, and some possible feelings they might inspire.

If the goal is to unite the Party for November, then lets dismiss the Never-Biden folks for now and focus on the regular Progressives.
They just witnessed both their candidates fail spectacularly.
They witnessed the faster-than-light-speed coalescing behind a single Center-Left candidate, probably at the behest of Party leadership, in direct response to the success of a Progressive candidate.
And though Biden has been gracious in victory, we both know online conversations between regular voters has been decidedly less than gracious.

So, the regular Progressive might be feeling crest-fallen, vulnerable, and hurt.

You know that Biden will need their votes, that feelings are important in politics, and that it is highly likely that a third-party candidate will more closely align with their policy views.

You've used phrases like "Tankies", "sabotage", "This isn't therapy", "disarm", "Don't expect us to let our guard down", "Get your group under control".
To me, this seems like conflict-oriented language. It's very us-versus-them.

That tells me that you've probably had heated arguments with Sanders supporters before.
That tells me that you might be feeling angry and defensive yourself.
That even tells me that you are probably engaging in our current conversation, maybe not from a place of open-minded discourse, but rather to 'win'.

How do you think your conflict-oriented language, and your general get-over-it attitude, makes regular Progressives feel?
Do you think you are making them more or less inclined to vote for Joe?

[PwrdOn]

It's just annoying that we went through that whole mess of a primary that ended up ruining the political star of more than a few up and coming Democratic hopefuls, only to end up with a guy whose entire pitch was that he was the most electable candidate, but isn't looking all too electable right about now. And whatever you think about Tara Reade or the truth of her allegations, the way that Democrats are going after her is pretty much the exact script that was used to discredit rape victims before Me Too. And if the supposedly PC and pro-woman left is normalizing these sorts of tactics, that effectively puts a nail in the coffin of the entire movement, all for the sake of electing Joe fucking Biden, who probably won't even win anyway. Of course all of this will be blamed on the left, and centrists will be back at it in 2024, serving up another bland uninspiring candidate to get curb stomped.

[TheDarman]

It's just annoying that we went through that whole mess of a primary that ended up ruining the political star of more than a few up and coming Democratic hopefuls, only to end up with a guy whose entire pitch was that he was the most electable candidate, but isn't looking all too electable right about now. And whatever you think about Tara Reade or the truth of her allegations, the way that Democrats are going after her is pretty much the exact script that was used to discredit rape victims before Me Too. And if the supposedly PC and pro-woman left is normalizing these sorts of tactics, that effectively puts a nail in the coffin of the entire movement, all for the sake of electing Joe fucking Biden, who probably won't even win anyway. Of course all of this will be blamed on the left, and centrists will be back at it in 2024, serving up another bland uninspiring candidate to get curb stomped.

Really? Because I think that asking questions and investigating discrepancies is important for any allegation of a crime being committed. If we don't do that, we end up at best with situations like what happened with Depp, where the guy lost his livelihood and was spit on for being a domestic abuser. At worst, though, we end up with situations like what happened with Emmett Till, a kid brutally murdered because of the allegation of whistling at a white woman. She later recanted that never happened, but, even if it had, that was obviously reprehensible what happened.

We have to maintain some level of commitment to maintaining a form of due process and evaluation of the facts before we torch people. We should have given Al Franken an ethics committee hearing. We didn't. And now we are paying for it because what we set as the standard was Franken's treatment and were outraged when Republicans wouldn't return the favor with Kavanaugh. We may be playing by our own rules, but we need to fair with how we employ them.

As it stands, there are too many questions that have been left unanswered by Reade's account. Why didn't she name Biden and herself in the report? Why wouldn't she have wanted D.C. Metro Police to be able to secure warrants and discover facts? Why wouldn't she have kept a report that she would've absolutely, 100% had in her personnel file? Was she just never given one or did she lose it? Why did the location change from a semi-private hallway in one story to the basement of a Senate office building in another? Why would she have publicly supported Biden in 2017, 24 years after the assault, for work to combat sexual assault? Why was she making Tweets directed at Biden saying she was waiting for the right "Timing"? Why would she change her original story from "there was no sexual misconduct", that she had "empathy" for Biden, and that he probably didn't even know why she left? Why would she wait to detail these allegations separate from her original ones when the race had winnowed down to just him and Sanders? Why would she refuse to release pertinent therapist records that indicate that she had discussed things regarding Biden around or a bit after 1993?

These are all good questions and they are far more wide-ranging and create far more problems than even the allegations leveled by Ford against Kavanaugh. It isn't an inconsistent standard if one of the only questions that I felt were left unanswered with Ford was "why did you wait so long" and "do you recall exactly where this was or when it took place". And those you can mostly chalk up to some level of repression and trauma. This isn't that case here. That's why you even have former sex crimes prosecutors coming out to defend Biden in Op-Eds:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/3046962001/

We can equalize if you'd like between them. I know you would like to because you don't really like Joe Biden and would love for these things to be true. But, even as someone who wasn't a supporter of Joe Biden until it came down to him or Sanders, I have to say that it is upsetting to see so many people hoping to throw out the guy who won the overwhelming majority of the popular vote for a story that is not comprehensive and still has many questions to be asked.

[jetengine]

It's just annoying that we went through that whole mess of a primary that ended up ruining the political star of more than a few up and coming Democratic hopefuls, only to end up with a guy whose entire pitch was that he was the most electable candidate, but isn't looking all too electable right about now. And whatever you think about Tara Reade or the truth of her allegations, the way that Democrats are going after her is pretty much the exact script that was used to discredit rape victims before Me Too. And if the supposedly PC and pro-woman left is normalizing these sorts of tactics, that effectively puts a nail in the coffin of the entire movement, all for the sake of electing Joe fucking Biden, who probably won't even win anyway. Of course all of this will be blamed on the left, and centrists will be back at it in 2024, serving up another bland uninspiring candidate to get curb stomped.

You'd be right if Reades story passed, it clearly doesnt though. Its ridiculous bullshit. Fords story was watertight comparably and she had just as long (longer?) time in between it happening and unlike Tara was forced to throw it out into the light meaning she couldnt collect herself.

[Steel Inquisitor]

I think bad feelings lead to bad election nights.
Which is why, if the tenor of these types of online conversations doesn't improve, November is looking particularly troubling for the Democrats.

Elections are lost more than just on feelings. You're not wrong, but you're entirely right, either. There's more to winning elections then you're willing to admit.

---

Story time!

Once upon a time, I worked Tech Support at Apple for a few months.
I didn't like it - I tend to internalize criticism. Was convinced I was headed for some kind of breakdown, then walked off after a tough call.

Anyway.

They used to tell us "Fix the real problem".
They meant the caller -- specifically, their feelings of anger and frustration.

If they're too angry, they can't listen to you.
If they're not listening to you, they can't hear your instructions.
If they can't hear your instructions, they can't follow them to resolve their issue.
And if their issue isn't solved, they're not gonna buy anything from you.

You fix the "real" problem by establishing a rapport, being empathetic, listening, being kind, etc.
It's a deceptively tough job. There's a lot juggling and managing of feelings.

Even though it wasn't for me, I still saw how it could be rewarding.
You enter a tough situation, there's conflict, but you calmly step in and work together to solve a problem.
When it goes well, it feels good.

I think we need more of that right now.
I don't see the wisdom in attacking voters that we need.
We need to console Progressives, and then sell them on Joe Biden.

---

So let's look at some of the language used in our conversation, and some possible feelings they might inspire.

Our conversation has been more than about language, it's about winning elections. Which require more diligence than just customer service. You've strangely avoided the details about improving the Left's strategies in winning elections, politicians who your supposed to be representing.

B]If the goal is to unite the Party for November,[/B] then lets dismiss the Never-Biden folks for now and focus on the regular Progressives.
They just witnessed both their candidates fail spectacularly.
They witnessed the faster-than-light-speed coalescing behind a single Center-Left candidate, probably at the behest of Party leadership, in direct response to the success of a Progressive candidate.

The majority of this thread are Warren supporters, yet none of us are in shell shock from loss. We are regular progressives, so I don't know you're assuming you speak for us. That phrasing veers far too close to conspiracy theory for my liking when what happened wasn't unusual in the least. Furthermore, this wasn't the first loss Sanders suffered running for president, they shouldn't be that caught off guard by the events unless they weren't paying attention.

And though Biden has been gracious in victory, we both know online conversations between regular voters has been decidedly less than gracious.

So, the regular Progressive might be feeling crest-fallen, vulnerable, and hurt.

You know that Biden will need their votes, that feelings are important in politics, and that it is highly likely that a third-party candidate will more closely align with their policy views.

Except "regular" progressives like you're describing aren't in the crosshairs of Democrats who sided with Biden, only their bad actors. If they're that open to a third party they weren't regular progressives, they weren't even Democrats. It's going to take more than being polite to get them on board.

You've used phrases like "Tankies", "sabotage", "This isn't therapy", "disarm", "Don't expect us to let our guard down", "Get your group under control".
To me, this seems like conflict-oriented language. It's very us-versus-them.

Because that's what primaries are, various factions fighting each other. All of those words I use are very relevant when it comes to the Left and it's worrying that your concerns are solely aimed at Liberals instead of both sides. Healing like that takes time, but it's been shown to be impossible when the bad actors on the left never stop attacking. This isn't in the past, this has been the status quo after 2016. That's why I bought up the accountability, the Left has failed utterly in doing this on their side so its thrived and normalised.

That tells me that you've probably had heated arguments with Sanders supporters before.
That tells me that you might be feeling angry and defensive yourself.
That even tells me that you are probably engaging in our current conversation, maybe not from a place of open-minded discourse, but rather to 'win'.

Curious. Are you saying you haven't had any arguments with anybody over elections the last few years?
Is there a reason I shouldn't be? I didn't want Biden to win, you know.
I'm all for open mindedness discourse but that isn't the same as agreeing wth you.

How do you think your conflict-oriented language, and your general get-over-it attitude, makes regular Progressives feel?
Do you think you are making them more or less inclined to vote for Joe?

Now you're tone policing. This thread's had numerous heated arguments from both sides, the question is why are you only focusing on one side to cool it rather than both? It was be remiss of me to ignore the facts about the politics involved, which you insist on not acknowledging as though doing so would cause both sides to come together in peace. Peace requires the other side is willing to listen and put down their arms. What convinced you the more heated Leftists would be open to a truce?

What I am finding peculiar is your aversion for any topic related to elections which is outside your narrow scope of feelings when your complaint was about the left not winning elections and when someone tries to discuss how to do this you flat out ignore it like I didn't say anything.

I do have a question. Are you going to vote for Biden?

[jetengine]

You've used phrases like "Tankies", "sabotage", "This isn't therapy", "disarm", "Don't expect us to let our guard down", "Get your group under control".
To me, this seems like conflict-oriented language. It's very us-versus-them.

[/I]

I mean, when these guys actively promote not voting, letting Trump win "to show them", actively salivating at the idea of your nation burning to the ground so they can 'inevitably win', promote Republican propaganda, promote violent tankie brands of communism (the kind where you agree or die) is it not surprising the more centralised groups treat them warily at best.

Hell we had people in this very thread say "Bernies win is inevitable, you'll all bend the knee or be destroyed" and our (very patient I might add) response was "Dont count your chickens" or pointing out how disturbung such talk sounds or another member who --as soon as it was clear Bernie had lost--- threw a shitfit, said he wouldn't vote and (when asked about how he could consider himself a progressive if he was willing to let others be hurt worse with Trump) saud he didnt give a **** because he was well off so who cares ?

[PaulBullion]

You'd be right if Reades story passed, it clearly doesnt though. Its ridiculous bullshit. Fords story was watertight comparably and she had just as long (longer?) time in between it happening and unlike Tara was forced to throw it out into the light meaning she couldnt collect herself.

Dr. Ford testified under oath.
Reade refused to name her supposed attacker in the police report she filed.
qed

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Legal Experts Erupt After White House Blocks Anthony Fauci’s Coronavirus Testimony

“This is a pathetic, transparent attempt to keep a lid on Trump’s incompetence.” BINGO!

**********

20 Meatpacking Workers Have Died From Coronavirus, Thousands Infected: CDC

The largely immigrant and minority workforce is at special risk during the pandemic.

**********

FDA Issues Emergency Approval For Coronavirus Treatment Drug

Limited evidence suggests remdesivir helps people recover from COVID-19 faster.

**********

I Studied The 2014 Ebola Outbreak. Here’s The Lesson We Didn’t Learn.

“The Ebola outbreak is in some ways a looking glass into the future of life with ― and possibly after ― COVID-19.”

**********

Essential Workers Want Real Hazard Pay. Most Of Them Are Getting Peanuts.

Facing unusually dangerous conditions, workers on the front lines have received small wage increases, if any. Many feel more underpaid than ever.

**********

Just Because I’m 90 Doesn’t Mean I’m Ready To Die ― Or Disposable

“As long as I’m still creative ... as long as I still enjoy life, nobody has the right to write me off.”

[PaulBullion]

Russia and Brazil currently worry me the most with their covid-19 trajectories.

1 in 50 people in Moscow is infected with the novel Coronavirus now.

[jetengine]

1 in 50 people in Moscow is infected with the novel Coronavirus now.

HEY HEY.....

They dont have Covid 19 in Russia. None at all.

Lots of people are coming down with "Russian Pneumonia" though....

[PaulBullion]

Michael Cohen mysteriously not released into house arrest as scheduled, instead gets pressured by Trump Org not to write tell-all book or else.

Perfectly normal.

[A Small Talent For War]

No one with a shred of decency or credibility is going to willingly carry water for this Orange degenerate.




It figures that another Republican knows not to trust this Orange Degenerate that is capable of anything so malignantly evil. Smart, smart Man.

There is a bit of nuance to that report though. Trump did not say that the virus was manmade. He said that there were reports that it started due to lax security at the Wuhan Institute of Virology where they study the coronavirus. They don't create viruses there, but they have viruses stored there for study. So, it could have not been manmade but still originated at the lab.

As the article reports, they haven't ruled out that possibility.

U.S. intelligence agencies are debunking a conspiracy theory, saying they have concluded that the new coronavirus was “not manmade or genetically modified” but say they are still examining a notion put forward by the president and aides that the pandemic may have resulted from an accident at a Chinese lab.

However, the real problem is that the Chinese government will not let anyone in to investigate the origin of the virus. If this was true, then they would definitely want to delay or completely deny any expert investigation until they had covered up all evidence of it. So far, they have been more focused on erasing and covering up than cooperation. If they had simply done for this what they did for SARS then there would have been no pandemic. So, I personally find that a little suspicious. I don't see why China would naturally want to cover up and deny the outbreak for weeks when they have gone through so many already and stopped them at origin.

If it did originate with an accidental exposure at a government lab, though, that at least gives a reasonable explanation for the initial cover-up.

[PaulBullion]

There is a bit of nuance to that report though. Trump did not say that the virus was manmade. He said that there were reports that it started due to lax security at the Wuhan Institute of Virology where they study the coronavirus. They don't create viruses there, but they have viruses stored there for study. So, it could have not been manmade but still originated at the lab.

As the article reports, they haven't ruled out that possibility.

U.S. intelligence agencies are debunking a conspiracy theory, saying they have concluded that the new coronavirus was “not manmade or genetically modified” but say they are still examining a notion put forward by the president and aides that the pandemic may have resulted from an accident at a Chinese lab.

However, the real problem is that the Chinese government will not let anyone in to investigate the origin of the virus. If this was true, then they would definitely want to delay or completely deny any expert investigation until they had covered up all evidence of it. So far, they have been more focused on erasing and covering up than cooperation. If they had simply done for this what they did for SARS then there would have been no pandemic. So, I personally find that a little suspicious. I don't see why China would naturally want to cover up and deny the outbreak for weeks when they have gone through so many already and stopped them at origin.

If it did originate with an accidental exposure at a government lab, though, that at least gives a reasonable explanation for the initial cover-up.

I'm not quite following you.
If they didn't create it, they got it from samples outside the laboratory. That means the virus was out there already and likely to spread.

[Tami]

Obama team fully vetted Biden in 2008 and found no hint of former aide's allegation

(CNN)When it became clear that Barack Obama would be the nominee of the Democratic Party in the spring of 2008, he commissioned a team of lawyers to begin an in-depth vetting process of potential candidates for vice president.

Dozens of women and men under consideration were reviewed. Those who rose on the list of contenders were subject to a deep-dive investigation of their strengths, vulnerabilities and, of course, any disqualifying defects.

At the top of the list of those contenders was Senator Joseph R. Biden of Delaware.

The comprehensive vet certainly would have turned up any formal complaints filed against Biden during his 36-year career in the Senate. It did not. The team would have investigated any salacious rumors of the sort that travel far and wide in Washington. There were none.

While I was not on the vetting team, as senior strategist to the campaign, I was briefed on their work and potential problems.

[jetengine]

Obama team fully vetted Biden in 2008 and found no hint of former aide's allegation

Meanwhile the Republican president is a rapist who's assaulted several women.