All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[WestPhillyPunisher]

We're at three 9/11s and change.

By Friday, we'll be seeing a number of deaths daily equivalent to 9/11.

Just pointing out that threshold because the GOP were so nice to club it over everyone's heads for two decades, and now are contributing to something that far exceeds it because warnings were ignored and the response was botched.

But hey, Trump will tell you it’s not his responsibility. As usual, he’ll blame Obama or the Democrats. That’s his favorite fallback.

[Tuck]

That'd bending to immense popularity political will, not doing it because you thought it was a good idea in the first place. You're forgetting how strong the GOP were back then and how popular Bush was, post-9/11. The Democrats were like bugs to windshield wipers in that environment. However, it helps to ackwldge the context so it's not used to straw man arguments. There's a lot more going on in that context than PwnedOn was allowing for.

What straw man? You were rejecting a comparison between Republicans and Democrats post 9/11.

The rhetoric at the time didn't seem to belie this deep internal conflict. And, in fact, Bush went out of his way to implore Americans to differentiate between the attackers and Muslims in general. So, I'm not sure there was this chasm. That's about as much as most Dems were doing.

I avoided mentioning Bernie voted against the act because I wasn't trying to get caught up in that nonsense, just push back against this idea that the Dems aren't a centrist party. They are. At least post 94 mid-terms. So, it goes to the larger part of the conversation that had been going on before I chimed in.

And transgender rights was in that mix. Not sure how popular that is politically. It might score some points in a primary, but pushing legislation would be going against the political winds there too.

Strategy is one thing. Failing to stand up for your values because it's hard is not strategy. It's fair-weather support.

There's often a tendency to try and apply both present day stances and hindsight to the past. We had a guy here a few months back who was insistent that Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was always an attempt to keep homosexuality out of the military - forgetting that the policy it replaced was basically "We WILL Ask, You WILL Tell, and if you lie, you might spend time in jail over it."

But that was legitimate incremental progress. Not a panicked roll back of rights. DADT made things a little bit better for gay service members. The Patriot Act made things worse for everyone, particularly Muslims or people presumed to be Muslim. (I mean some of the stuff improving inter-departmental communication and things like requiring a physical address to open a bank account were necessary, but it was a whole lot of ugly.)

[Steel Inquisitor]

What straw man? You were rejecting a comparison between Republicans and Democrats post 9/11.

The straw man that every Democrat was identical to the GOP in that time period, when that's not true. There was a large rift between the two parties and the Patriot Act was very controversial on the let side of the political alignment. Everyone didn't rush over to agree with the Republicans, no questions asked. Democrats heavily disagreed with how the GOP did things, on every subject.

The rhetoric at the time didn't seem to belie this deep internal conflict. And, in fact, Bush went out of his way to implore Americans to differentiate between the attackers and Muslims in general. So, I'm not sure there was this chasm. That's about as much as most Dems were doing.

Bush did a superior job than Trump is, which is a low bar to clear. He may have made some articulated comments but he let Fox News, right wing media and his own government go after Muslims, and anyone who disagreed with him, on an unprecedented level. There was conflict, but not on the GOP side. The Dems were scraping by with that they had, they were in a poor position to fight back with. That's how strong Bush's government was.

I avoided mentioning Bernie voted against the act because I wasn't trying to get caught up in that nonsense, just push back against this idea that the Dems aren't a centrist party. They are. At least post 94 mid-terms. So, it goes to the larger part of the conversation that had been going on before I chimed in.

The context I was responding to was trying to frame the GOP and Democrats in that time period as identical, which I disagreed on. There's a large difference between a Third Party Democrat and a Republican.

And transgender rights was in that mix. Not sure how popular that is politically. It might score some points in a primary, but pushing legislation would be going against the political winds there too.

Gay rights were popular and a major argument in politics at the time, progress hadn't made transgender right a major political rallying point back then.

Strategy is one thing. Failing to stand up for your values because it's hard is not strategy. It's fair-weather support.

Part of leadership is knowing when too fold, you can't win every engagement - being destroyed politically with no hope of changing anything isn't going to help anybody. The scales are tipped so far in the GOPs direction there were very few options to fight back with.

But that was legitimate incremental progress. Not a panicked roll back of rights. DADT made things a little bit better for gay service members. The Patriot Act made things worse for everyone, particularly Muslims or people presumed to be Muslim. (I mean some of the stuff improving inter-departmental communication and things like requiring a physical address to open a bank account were necessary, but it was a whole lot of ugly.)

You're not getting how popular Bush was, I've never seen anything like it. The Republicans milked 9/11 with no shame and the public lapped it up. Anyone who spoke out against it was discredited and destroyed.

[Tuck]

Part of leadership is knowing when too fold, you can't win every engagement - being destroyed politically with no hope of changing anything isn't going to help anybody. The scales are tipped so far in the GOPs direction there were very few options to fight back with.

I haven't flown in over 10 years because I got to a breaking point with the process. It's actually gotten worse. When is this moment when the time will be ripe for rolling all these civil rights restrictions back?

(I'm aware bits and pieces were chipped away . . . but we have a generation so used to it that people can unironically and cavalierly declare privacy obsolete.)

[Steel Inquisitor]

I haven't flown in over 10 years because I got to a breaking point with the process. It's actually gotten worse. When is this moment when the time will be ripe for rolling all these civil rights restrictions back?

(I'm aware bits and pieces were chipped away . . . but we have a generation so used to it that people can unironically and cavalierly declare privacy obsolete.)

They've been doing this.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...discrimination

[Kevinroc]

https://twitter.com/IanSams/status/1247349588509495296

Wow. NYT reports Trump himself has a financial stake in the French company that makes the brand-name version of hydroxychloroquine.

https://t.co/FM1t2WadgN?amp=1

[Kirby101]

I am sure Metscwill come along and give a labored explanation of why the GOP isn't really disenfranchising voters.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ruth-...b62459a92dc109

[PwrdOn]

There's often a tendency to try and apply both present day stances and hindsight to the past. We had a guy here a few months back who was insistent that Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was always an attempt to keep homosexuality out of the military - forgetting that the policy it replaced was basically "We WILL Ask, You WILL Tell, and if you lie, you might spend time in jail over it."

Trying to look at it in context doesn't make any sense though, because Americans largely didn't harbor any particular historical resentment toward Muslims before 9/11, it was all freshly stirred up as part of the propaganda campaign to get public opinion behind the war on terror. There were a smattering of Democratic voices saying that maybe going to war was a bad idea, but I don't remember hearing a single person speak up for the rights of Muslims or even entertain the notion that anti-Muslim hate crimes would be any kind of issue. Hell, even to this day there aren't that many public figures willing to stick their necks out for Muslims, people will only even bring up the Iraq War as a failure by noting the money we spent and the number of American soldiers that were killed, never mind the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians that died or the crippling damage it did to their economy, if you bring that up then you must be some radical who hates America.

And to be clear, this isn't crying over spilled milk, this pretty much happens to EVERY group of people that were ever marked out as enemies of the United States. We go in, tear up their country, and kill lots of people, then when that doesn't end up solving anything we start endless rounds of navel gazing as to why we shouldn't have done that and how maybe these people weren't all bad for just defending themselves from us. But before that has a chance to fully settle in we've already got our next target singled out and the propaganda machine starts churning anew. And given how diverse our population is, at this point deciding to invade ANY country will mean that millions of American citizens, including anyone bearing a passing resemblance to the enemy du jour, will find themselves the target of harassment and violence.

[TheDarman]

I am sure Metscwill come along and give a labored explanation of why the GOP isn't really disenfranchising voters.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ruth-...b62459a92dc109

This is precisely why voting has been my number one issue above all else.

People were right to condemn Citizens United, but Shelby County v. Holder, in my opinion, was far more disastrous for our democracy. It opened the floodgates to voting law changes that allowed for protections for politicians against their constituents rather than the other way around.

Nothing else matters if we disenfranchise people to vote. We could have the most universally popular programs in history on the ballot, but if it is allowed, we can remove the majority of folks who would vote for that policy off the voter rolls.

This is why we have to take a stand and to vote for candidates who will expand the right to vote, make it accessible, and who will appoint judges and justices who will uphold those expansions against Conservative attacks. We must. Or we risk losing the soul of our nation.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Trying to look at it in context doesn't make any sense though, because Americans largely didn't harbor any particular historical resentment toward Muslims before 9/11, it was all freshly stirred up as part of the propaganda campaign to get public opinion behind the war on terror. There were a smattering of Democratic voices saying that maybe going to war was a bad idea, but I don't remember hearing a single person speak up for the rights of Muslims or even entertain the notion that anti-Muslim hate crimes would be any kind of issue. Hell, even to this day there aren't that many public figures willing to stick their necks out for Muslims, people will only even bring up the Iraq War as a failure by noting the money we spent and the number of American soldiers that were killed, never mind the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians that died or the crippling damage it did to their economy, if you bring that up then you must be some radical who hates America.

Context is reality, you don't get to ignore it because it defies your argument. You don't get to choose your facts. Now you're admitting the Democrats wee divided downplay it. I'm skeptical about your views on this since you're putting together a narrative and putting the facts in rather than coming to it with the facts at hand. "Some say" isn't a compelling argument, btw. Now you're bridging 9/11 with the current party as though "nothing has changed" when the status quo your arguing against changes when questioned.

And to be clear, this isn't crying over spilled milk, this pretty much happens to EVERY group of people that were ever marked out as enemies of the United States. We go in, tear up their country, and kill lots of people, then when that doesn't end up solving anything we start endless rounds of navel gazing as to why we shouldn't have done that and how maybe these people weren't all bad for just defending themselves from us. But before that has a chance to fully settle in we've already got our next target singled out and the propaganda machine starts churning anew. And given how diverse our population is, at this point deciding to invade ANY country will mean that millions of American citizens, including anyone bearing a passing resemblance to the enemy du jour, will find themselves the target of harassment and violence.

Defining those issues as American exceptionalism at work sure is an odd stance to take. There's discussion to be had about how Muslims are viewed in America and America's failures in allowing them to assimilate properly but you're not making it.

[jetengine]

I thought the patriot act was fairly simple.

A. Everyone was fucking scared, they did dumb things...because they were scared.
B. If they said "this is bullshit" they were branded anti-American, freedom hating, terrorist sympathizers and then utterly crushed.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2015, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” posted a profile of Warren Chisum, a former member of the Texas House of Representatives who forwarded an e-mail to the entire legislature that claimed evolution was religious heresy promoted in the texts of the Pharisees and denied the concept of heliocentricism over geocentricism, and that “Copernicus was in league with the Jews”. Chisum was also big on trying to deny gays not just the right to marry, but the right to adopt, but his focus on marriage was so intense that he actually wanted to make it harder for married couples to get divorced, drafting legislation that would force them to first go through 10 hours of marriage counseling. Chisum was particularly noteworthy for how he would “gamble” in the early 1990s by paying men infected with AIDS a percentage of the face value for life insurance policies, that would pay out him as the primary beneficiary if (usually when) they died of the terminal virus. He told a reporter, “if they die in a month, you know, they (the settlements) do really good.” Chisum supposedly made $200,000 off of six people who died of AIDS this way, which is one of the worst things I’ve ever had to write about, even from Texas. Chisum embarrassed former Texas Gov. Rick Perry by opposing the HPV Vaccine being given to high school girls, and between that and his e-mail forwards, alienated himself within the Texas Republican Party that he failed to win election to be Speaker of the Texas House in 2010, and found himself unable to even win the office of railroad commissioner in 2012. Since he’s been silent now for almost a whole election cycle, is now on the wrong side of 70, and his lasting legacy of trying to ban same sex marriage and sodomy in Texas have been overturned by the Supreme Court.

On this date in 2016, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” posted a profile of Cynthia Lummis, the former four-term U.S. House Representative for Wyoming's "At Large" Congressional District. Prior to running for Congress in 2008, Lummis was a long time member of the Wyoming state legislature and multi-millionaire heir to a ranching family. Once she got to the Capitol, she obsessively kept trying to chip away at Social Security,including when she introduced HR 1160 to the floor of the House, a bill that would raise the minimum retirement age to qualify for Social Security from 65 to 70. It mercifully failed to advance, but she has railed against Social Security and any other government program she feels is an unnecessary entitlement. Just like she did against the Affordable Care Act, lying and claiming that its passage would lead to “healthcare rationing”, one of the biggest political lies going in 2009 and 2010. Her rage against the ACA was taken to a whole new level in December of 2014… and out on Jonathon Gruber, the ACA Architect, during a hearing about the initial glitches on the Obamacare website by blaming the technical mishaps of the healthcare website on her husband’s recent death. Now, why was that a load of bulls***? The Affordable Care Act was designed to provide healthcare for those who otherwise would not be able to afford medical insurance… people who tend to be less well off. Cynthia Lummis and her husband were worth an estimated $20-75 million. AND he had health insurance. He could have just paid for the one test Lummis claims he didn’t get that would have saved his life, because he was, according to her, confused about his enrollment status. But there is no tragedy Lummis or the GOP is unwilling to exploit, even self-inflicted ones. Lummis also spent her last debate in her final run for her Congressional seat, fear-mongering about the Ebola Virus, and calling for a travel ban from West Africa until “things settle down” (against the advisement of the CDC). Her voting record also saw consistent votes against equal pay for women, veotes against all LGBT rights, votes to defund Planned Parenthood, a vote against Hurricane Sandy Disaster Relief, votes to shut down the government in 2013 and a vote not to reopen it, and a vote against even the Zadroga bill, to provide healthcare for first responders from 9/11. Lummis took her heartless lack of concern for her fellow man and retired from office in 2016.)

On this date in 2017, as well as 2018, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day posted its first profile of Iowa State Senator Mark Chelgren, who was first elected in, but of course, the 2010 Tea Party Wave by a whopping 10 votes. You heard us right, TEN VOTES. And Chelgren has since spent his two terms in the Iowa State Senate not just pushing for fanatically conservative policies, but going as far out of his way as possible to antagonize Democratic members of the state legislature, then playing the victim when they take offense and actually put him in his place for it. But what would you expect from a guy paranoid enough that he compares Iowa’s voluntary preschool classes for four year old children to Nazi indoctrination? Or that he’s so vulnerable to attack that he could be offended by the actions of Stanford’s marching band when they played the University of Iowa in the Rose Bowl, and he demanded a personal apology from them for making jokes about cow-tipping during a halftime show? Mark Chelgren also has some wild views on illegal immigration. like the modest idea that we use the death penalty on any illegal immigrant who’s got any kind of felony offense on their record while they’re being detained, rather than deport them like he did in December of 2015. Democrats have no respect for Mark Chelgren at this point, as was evidenced in April of 2012 when he submitted an amendment to a budget bill to try and force divorced mothers to undergo drug testing in order to continue to receive child support to prove they’re not just spending it on drugs. This has now moved to open mockery because just days after Chelgren attempted to pass legislation to require universities to begin having quotas for party affiliation amongst its staff so they would have to hire an equal number of Republicans and Democrats (which yes, is insane), it was just discovered that Mark Chelgren’s profile on the Iowa State Senate’s website involved him claiming to have a “business degree from Forbco Management School”. Further research showed Forbco Management owned a Sizzler Restaurant in California, and Chelgren’s “business degree” (which he has no physical record of) was in effect, a piece of paper handed to him by the owners of a steakhouse. Chelgren may have well been touting a Master’s Degree from McDonald’s “Hamburger University”. At one point, Chelgren was very briefly on the ballot in 2016 for Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District in the House, but backed out, and amid all the controversy over his educational background and the Blue Wave combined, Chelgren opted to not run for re-election in 2018.

On this date in 2019, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” profiled former Florida State Senator Jack Latvala, who served in that body on and off since 1994 in three separate districts, but resigned in December of 2017, about a year before he would have faced term limits anyway, even though he was rumored to have been one of the GOP’s top pics to become the next Governor of Florida in 2018. The problem with that, though, was the Jack Latvala had been a skeevy bastard for some time, and a platoon of women came forth from within the state capitol to accuse Latvala of sexual misconduct. Not just harassment, but there were reports that he was willing to exchange legislative favors for sexual ones (only narrowly avoiding being charged with a crime). During his time in office, Latvala was also an extreme partisan hack (provided he wasn’t solicited to be “moderate”), including anti-choice and pro-gun votes, as well as his co-sponsorship of the Florida GOP’s attempts to nullify the Affordable Care Act. Since the MeToo Movement claimed another sum-bitch and he’s now out of office, we’ll profile another wacky Republican today instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 848-45, since this was established in July 2014.)

[worstblogever]

Stony Rushing

Welcome to what is the 848th original profile here at “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day”, where we’ll be discussing Stony Rushing, a no-s*** Boss Hogg impersonator and gun range owner who ran for office in the 2019 special election for North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives. Rushing did so with the blessing of Mark Harris, the man whose 2018 run for Congress for the same seat was tainted by voter fraud. His father, Rocky, named him Stony because he was a fan of the Flintstones.

None of that is made up.

But what Rushing insisted WAS made up were all the charges of voter fraud that were leveled against Mark Harris and his corrupt proxy, McRae Dowless. In spite of a large portion of the North Carolina Republican Party coming forward to acknowledge they knew Dowless was dirty, and several people, including Harris’ own son admitting that Harris was warned against hiring him in the first place. But if you asked Stony Rushing, the real fraud was perpetuated by Mark Harris’ Democratic opponent, Dan McCready, and spread conspiracy theories about election fraud everywhere else except where, y’know, it happened.

Rushing was also that excellent combination of hypocrite that was staunchly pro-life, referring to abortion as “infanticide”(zygotes are not infants), but simultaneously believed in no restrictions upon firearms even though tens of thousands of people are killed by gun violence a year. His entire campaign was bizarre from the jump, and continued to be weird, including an ad he released on social media where he promised to fight the swamp by posing… with an albino snake around his neck? Which is only a good thing if you’re Britney Spears at the VMAs.

Which isn’t even half as bizarre as his personal life, like that he tried to cover up an extramarital affair by allegedly having his daughter accuse his mistress of a variety of sex crimes. (???)

Stony Rushing lost the GOP Primary in the special election, at least finishing second, but failing to get even 20% of the vote. We’d like to think this would be the end of his political career, but in today’s GOP, who can really be sure of how seriously they’ll take a joker like this?

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Ginsburg Blasts Conservative Justices Who Blocked Wisconsin’s Absentee Voting Extension

“Either they will have to brave the polls,” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissent, “or they will lose their right to vote.” This is terrible, plain and simple! Voters shouldn't have to deal with such an awful choice during a pandemic, but, the GOP, a.k.a., the Party of Death doesn't give a ****.

**********

Trump Says COVID-19 Supply Is Under Control, He Doesn’t Need A Czar

Meanwhile, health care workers treating coronavirus patients don’t have enough masks, and officials are turning to the black market. Short and sweet, do NOT believe a single thing Trump says! That will get people killed.



**********

Hospital Workers In Unsafe Conditions Fear They’ll Get Too Sick To Care For Patients

The people treating COVID-19 patients are at risk of joining them because they aren’t adequately protected.

**********

Acting Navy Secretary Calls Ousted Captain ‘Stupid’ In Speech To Ship’s Crew

Thomas Modly shocked the crew when he slammed Capt. Brett Crozier for sending an email about the coronavirus outbreak on board. That fuckwad Modly needs to be fired because Crozier's actions probably saved lives.

**********

‘Donald Trump Has Blood On His Hands’: NYC Official Lashes Out After Mom’s Death

New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer rips the president’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.

**********

Trump Repeatedly Attacks Reporters In Coronavirus Briefing

The president has frequently vilified and badgered members of the press, often women of color, in his daily updates on the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump has blatantly turned those briefings into mini rallies and uses that forum to air grievances he refuses to bury.

[shooshoomanjoe]

trump Has Stake In Hydroxychloroquine Drugmaker. Now we know why he's been pushing a drug that the medical community isn't.