All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[PaulBullion]

Out Sen. Tammy Baldwin Endorses Biden

[PaulBullion]

Cardi B endorses Joe Biden

[PaulBullion]

Sen. Liz Warren endorses Joe Biden

“Joe Biden has spent nearly his entire life in public service,” Warren said. “He knows that a government run with integrity, competence, and heart will save lives and save livelihoods."

[PaulBullion]

The Lincoln Project, a group of never-Trump Republicans, endorse Joe Biden.

That is quite a broad coalition of endorsements, from far left to GOP members.

[Mister Mets]

Yet we both know that Republican policies are both harming people and getting them killed -- whether it's allowing for covering for police brutality against African-Americans by rolling back federal oversight of law officers, trying to deny women the legal right to abortion based on their own religious views, arguing against Constitutionally protected equal rights for LGBT citizens for no rational reason whatsoever, raising record deficits and denying climate change for short term profits, starting wars with other nations over false pretences such as "WMDs", torturing individuals in CIA blacksite off the grid "prisons", destroying respect for American leadership on a national stage by withdrawing from international agreements without coordinating with longtime allies first -- and even starting trade wars with said allies, supporting a corrupt authoritarian with no sense of fiscal or federal responsibilty or dozens of other "harmful" issues that you want to pretend don't exist.

Again, if you choose to overlook all of those faults within your party while trying to argue that the Democrats are the ones causing "harm" to our nation, then it says a lot more about you than it does the Democratic party -- If "harm" and "death" were your real concerns, you would have renounced the Republican party back when Bush Jr. was in office.

At a certain point one can only posit that you accept all the dishonesty and corruption inherent in said party even as you claim you don't -- Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq on false pretences got hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed and cost this nation trillions of dollars while Trump is now trying to send people back to work in the middle of global pandemic even though thousands have already died partially due to his and the Republican party's incompetence as no modern Democrat has even come close to that level of death and destruction all based on lies.

Meanwhile, unemployment hovers around 10% and the Republicans have yet to announce a real plan to address these problems. The Republican president is giving out false potentially harmful advice regarding this epidemic on a daily basis while the rest of the Republican party -- like yourself -- tries to pretend he is some kind of outlier when he has record support from the party, as well as Republicans veterans like McConnell, Graham, Barr, and Gingrich.

Your party's leader is currently defunding the World Health Organization in the midst of a global pandemic -- one only wonders how much more "harm" do you want to see done by Republicans before you will finally admit that they are not on the "right" side of policy issues, whether domestic or foreign. But again -- if you can sit here and make excuses for Republicans like Bush and Cheney then it shows that all your arguments about "harm and death" are disengenuous, regardless.

For all your complaints about "the left" everyone here (including you) knows the Republicans have done far more harm to this nation and the world at large over the past few decades than any other organization on the planet -- you have yet to show any proof that Democratic policies are more harmful than those of Republicans like Trump and Bush.

Nearly every argument you make in that regard is based on your own peronal bias -- not objective factual evidence.

The idea that most of the people on the other side do what they think is right should not be a surprising one. That this is difficult to grasp for some represents problems with current political tribalism. This isn't limited to Democrats and liberals, as quite a few conservatives just fail to understand that liberals are going with policies meant to make things better, that the point of a robust welfare state is not to create a group of reliable voters dependent on government support, that the point of expanding mail-in voting is not to make fraud on a massive level inevitable and harder to detect, or that the purpose of environmental regulations is not to cripple industry.

Your comment is a bit of a gish gallop, in that you brought up a lot of concepts all at once, each of which merit longer discussion. As a general point, sometimes there are mistakes made with the best of intentions. And sometimes there are tradeoffs, which can result in the understanding that a benefit is not worth the cost.

I really disagree with the notion that the American Republican party has done more harm to the world than any other organization, let alone that this is so well-known and widely obvious that any intelligent person should be aware that the Republicans have committed more harm than the Chinese communist party, the Russian government, Hezbollah, or any terrorist organization. It represents a tremendous blind spot to not understand that people might see the world differently than you do.

Since it can't be denied the GOP is in Trump's pocket right now.

Is this the fabled "Trump who?" moment that folks like Mets will kickstart themselves from for years on end to justify voting fot their party from now on? Since effective leadership to pass COVID-19 is possibly the biggest 21st century challenge to be remembered from right now, barring whatever climate change also brings next.

I didn't vote for Trump, nor do I have any interest in doing so, as Democrats have nominated a reasonable, decent person.

On the COVID-19 question, the US does seem to be in the middle of the pack in terms of per capita losses.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/st...73172690046977

This does raise the question of how much Trump's mistakes screwed this up.
There are counterarguments that the US should be expected to do significantly better than other countries, as we do have some significant advantages (low population density compared to Europe, robust private sector, etc.)
We could also imagine someone else making different mistakes, such as taking longer to close down travel with China, while still having the same bureaucratic problems.

[Maine Starfish]

That is a terrible conclusion. Hillary could parrot last-minute left-wing promises all she wanted, most of them were based in surface-level identity politics, and she had a credibility problem that rendered them moot in any case.

Agreed, the idea that Clinton lost because of Sanders or his supporters or moving to the left just doesn’t make any sense to me. It seems like just another way to point fingers and refuse to consider that Clinton just wasn’t a very good candidate and ran a very poor campaign.

[PaulBullion]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Endorses Joe Biden

[Mister Mets]

I said a long time ago that they will only change when they are they ones who are finally hurt by Republican policies -- in that respect Trump is far ahead of schedule.

Then they'll develop collective anmesia and go right back down the path of self-destruction that we saw under the Bush clan -- right down to record deficits, William Barr, John Bolton, and economic recession.

When he says "harm" one can only assume he means only those who are privileged enough not to have to deal with the negative effects of his party's racism, homophobia, xenophobia and Islamophobia directly -- much less those who have to suffer as a result of their absolute incompetence when it comes to both domestic economic crises and unnecessary foriegn conflict.

It's the same old false "open borders" argument where he thinks people should be more concerned about the "evils" that might come across the border than the ones who are already in office -- so long as he isn't their target then no "harm" done.

Harm applies to everybody. Most political figures are going to assume that things will be better off for most Americans under their policies.
I'll note that there is more of an indication that Democrats favor open borders than that Republicans favor racism.
And meanwhile the next post was a call to abolish ICE.

Abolish.

ICE.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...911_story.html

What should we replace ICE with? Since Democrats do not favor open borders, how do we determine which undocumented immigrants should be sent back?
Or should the policy be that anyone who gets into the country can stay in unless they commit felonies?

Congratulations, you immediately went from chastising Democrats for not ousting an accused rapist beyond their power to do so, to digging in to defend one.

Within the same mass response post for your complete hypocrisy based on partisanship alone to set in. Saved me the trouble of quoting older ones.

Given that Swetnick was the only one to accuse Kavanaugh of rape, it does seem that you think Swetnick's allegation that prominent high school students in the Washington DC suburbs regularly gang-raped women should count at all against Kavanaugh. I'm glad to have that as the benchmark.

You cant read clearly, I'm saying WHAT IS MORE LIKELY.

A. This sequence of events that happens on a regular basis (sexual assaults on college grounds), backed up by Kavanaugh having a rep as being a drunken fratboy.

B. Reades contradictory story involving a man who never strays, three different locations, her not wearing the right clothing, him apparently assaulting her at the height of "If a man does shit we'll deal with it" season. Followed by her current love of both Bernie and Putin.

If we're going with guilt by association, Democratic senators did some disgusting stuff in the 80s. I wrote about this earlier, but a GQ profile on Ted Kennedy had him and Chris Dodd (Senator from Connecticut) publicly engaging in behavior that would lead to resignations today.

It is after midnight and Kennedy and Dodd are just finishing up a long dinner in a private room on the first floor of the restaurant's annex. They are drunk. Their dates, two very young blondes, leave the table to go to the bathroom. (The dates are drunk too. "They'd always get their girls very, very drunk," says a former Brasserie waitress.) Betty Loh, who served the foursome, also leaves the room. Raymond Campet, the co-owner of La Brasserie, tells Gaviglio the senators want to see her.

As Gaviglio enters the room, the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair. With Gaviglio on Dodd's lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms of the chair. As he is doing this, Loh enters the room. She and Gaviglio both scream, drawing one or two dishwashers. Startled, Kennedy leaps up. He laughs. Bruised, shaken and angry over what she considered a sexual assault, Gaviglio runs from the room. Kennedy, Dodd and their dates leave shortly thereafter, following a friendly argument between the senators over the check.

And that was in a French restaurant in the middle of DC. What the hell were they like in secluded mansions?

[4saken1]

Agreed, the idea that Clinton lost because of Sanders or his supporters or moving to the left just doesn’t make any sense to me. It seems like just another way to point fingers and refuse to consider that Clinton just wasn’t a very good candidate and ran a very poor campaign.

Can you name another Presidential nominee that wasn't a 'very good candidate' and 'ran a very poor campaign' that got 3 million more votes than their competitor?

[Maine Starfish]

Can you name another Presidential nominee that wasn't a 'very good candidate' and 'ran a very poor campaign' that got 3 million more votes than their competitor?

Why do I have to come up with another example of someone? I’m aware Clinton won the popular vote, and hey I’d be all for getting rid of our electoral college process. But that doesn’t change the fact that she didn’t run a good campaign, the key states she lost in she never even visited, how does that make sense?

[jetengine]

Sanders wasnt the only reason. He was one of many however.

[4saken1]

Moderates have lost the last two decades on the national level pretty handily. Gore and Kerry lost.

Do you have any evidence to support that this is because they were too moderate? Also, voter suppression and the EC helped (in the former case, at least). But actually, discounting the EC, Democrats have gotten more votes than Republicans in 6 of the last 7 Elections.

Obama won as a symbol of progressive change, sharply pivoted to the center, and lost the house during his second term, with many former Obama voters
abandoning Clinton for Trump subsequently.

Again, taking facts and drawing the conclusions that you want from them while offering zero proof that those are the reasons for the results. Obama ran as anti-gay the first time he ran. Not too Progressive! I think you are confusing his populism with progressiveness. Also, your argument completely ignores the black vote as a huge reason for his winning and the fact that more often than not, most Presidents on both sides lose their midterm Elections, but that's not very convenient to the argument that you are trying to make.

[QUOTE=Lightning Rider;4934007]Although to be accurate, the ardent "Bernie Bros" showed up for Hillary. It won't be their vote alone that abandons Biden, should he lose. It's the disaffected, alienated working class that stays home because they don't feel elections offer them anything./QUOTE]

Many who have been polled might state these as reasons why they don't vote, but voter turnout has stayed pretty consistent over the past 75 years, with some years, usually due to events that were happening at that time period, showed a spike:

1932 - 52.60%
1936 - 56.90%
1940 - 58.80%
1944 - 56.10%
1948 - 51.10%
1952 - 61.60%
1956 - 59.30%
1960 - 62.80%
1964 - 61.40%
1968 - 60.70%
1972 - 55.10%
1976 - 53.60%
1980 - 52.80%
1984 - 53.30%
1988 - 50.30%
1992 - 55.20%
1996 - 49.00%
2000 - 50.30%
2004 - 55.70%
2008 - 58.20%
2012 - 54.90%
2016 - 55.70%

[PaulBullion]

It’s true, for a time, that one of the slogans that emerged from the nascent #MeToo movement was “Believe women.” But it was never that simple; nobody ever said, or meant, “believe every woman, no matter how incredible or undocumented her claim.” The point was to give women’s accounts of sexual assault a fair and respectful hearing: first, hopefully, by police; or, if she made her claim to the media, by reporters.

Reporters have done just that with Tara Reade. Her allegation against Biden doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny. And bullying by the left or right won’t change that.

https://www.thenation.com/article/po...den-democrats/

[aja_christopher]

The idea that most of the people on the other side do what they think is right should not be a surprising one. That this is difficult to grasp for some represents problems with current political tribalism.

It has absolutely nothing to do with that as I am not -- nor have I ever been -- a Democrat.

I'm just not a hypocrite when it comes to observing the obvious differences between the two parties.

It's not "liberalism" to point out the absolute trash presidents and Congressmen the Republican party has put out over the past few decades, nor their penchant for lies, warmongering, record deficits, and criminal behavior, or for relying on racism, xenophobia and homophobia to win elections.

Again, you might not find those things as problematic because -- to be blunt -- they don't affect you negatively and may work to your benefit.

However, when your lack of concern for my rights endangers my life, or the rights of women, or those in the LGBT community, we have a problem.

That has nothing to do with "tribalism" or "not understanding different views" -- it's about our right to be treated as equals in American society.

With that in mind I don't view this as so much a debate as it is a confirmation of what most here already know.

If the Republicans actually lived up to the values and ethics you keep espousing you might have a valid defense in that respect.

As it stands you're just here trying to point fingers at others in order to distract from the truth about your party.

He currently sits in the White House, protected by Barr, McConnell, Graham, and a host of other Republicans who share similar views on ethics.

[4saken1]

Why do I have to come up with another example of someone? I’m aware Clinton won the popular vote, and hey I’d be all for getting rid of our electoral college process. But that doesn’t change the fact that she didn’t run a good campaign, the key states she lost in she never even visited, how does that make sense?

You're saying that she made mistakes (like every campaign does) and equating that to running a bad campaign. For the last 50 years, in about half of all Elections, one candidate or the other gets less votes than the candidate from the same Party got in the previous Election despite population growth. A 'bad campaign' doesn't get a candidate more votes than any white male in history!