All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Mister Mets]

Mets' analogy about tire slashing doesn't wash. It's comparing apples and oranges. I mean, let's say a baseball player gets a hit every fourth at-bat, so he's hitting .250. That's considered a good, but not great batting average. However, if a basketball player makes a free throw every fourth time at the line, he has a free throw percentage of 25%. That's considered an absolutely terrible free throw percentage.

You have to look at the context. Most people don't slash their neighbor's tires, so even doing it once every seven days would be considered a bad thing. But lying? Well, there are all kinds of lies and all kinds of things to lie about. I mean, Trump lies about his golf game, but no one cares about that. But when he lies about the shenanigans he pulled to get himself elected, it's something we should all care about.

I'm perfectly fine with the argument that some kind of lies are fine and some are not. What is the line?

If Democratic policies consistently create better economies "for the most people" over the long term, shouldn't you back them for election?

If Republican policies consistently create record deficits and recessions (and openly promote white nationalism), should you back them for re-election?

You're engaging in false equivalence yet again (three years vs twenty five years) instead of accepting data that you disagree with solely due to political bias.

Trump is riding a wave that Obama created -- it remains to be seen how long it lasts.

-----
"U.S. stock-market investors should know better than to base their investments on superstitions or trivia, but there’s a curious trend that has persisted for decades that could serve as yet another reason to be cautious about markets.

Since the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, who left office in 1909, every single Republican president has seen a recession take hold in their first term."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sh...erm-2018-05-02

-------
"The U.S. economy has officially entered the longest expansion in its history.

The nation’s gross domestic product has been growing for the last 121 consecutive months, the metric used to measure periods of sustained economic growth. That surpasses the 120-month expansion from 1991 to 2001. The most recent expansion started in 2009, after the global financial crisis in 2008. The Great Recession was the worst U.S. economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1920s and ’30s.

President Donald Trump regularly takes credit for the strong economy on his watch, although the expansion began under President Barack Obama and has continued on a relatively steady pace since 2009.

The Republican tax cuts and increased government spending last year did boost the nation’s gross domestic product. But those gains are now wearing off as spending slows, prices rise and Americans prepare for the personal income taxes to expire in 2025."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy...s-history-last

If you think this argument is accurate, it would suggest center-left Presidents are helpful. It doesn't necessarily provide any argument for voting for Warren or Sanders over Trump (especially if the current state of the economy is fine.)

I don't think the argument is entirely accurate, due to a limited sample size. Although there were external factors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...c1a_story.html

Blinder and Watson march through economic studies. Their conclusion: About half of the Democrats’ advantage reflected “good luck” — favorable outside events or trends. Three dominate.

Global “oil shocks” — steep increases in prices, which depressed economic growth — were the largest, because they hurt Republicans more than Democrats. They occurred in 1973 (Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford), 1979 (Jimmy Carter but affecting Ronald Reagan’s first term) and 2008 (George W. Bush). Statistically, they explain slightly more than a quarter of the Democratic-Republican gap.

Productivity — efficiency — was the next largest contributor. But presidents can’t magically raise productivity; it reflects too many forces: research, improved schools, better management, entrepreneurs. Although Bill Clinton benefited from an Internet boom, he didn’t invent the Internet. Productivity gains occurred disproportionately under Democratic presidents and accounted for nearly a fifth of the gap, report Blinder and Watson.

War was the final factor. Military buildups for the Korean and Vietnam wars boosted growth in the Truman and Johnson presidencies, respectively. Since the late 1940s, inflation-adjusted defense spending rose 5.9 percent annually under Democrats and only 0.8 percent under Republicans. The buildups accounted for about an eighth of the Democratic advantage.

A big chunk of the difference is arguably Democrats focusing on jobs while Republicans focus on curbing inflation.

As for the rest of the gap, Blinder and Watson say it’s a “mystery.” Actually, the explanation is staring them in the face.

The parties have philosophical differences that affect the economy. To simplify slightly: Democrats focus more on jobs; Republicans more on inflation. What resulted was a cycle in which Democratic presidents tended to preside over expansions (usually worsening inflation) and Republicans suffered recessions (usually dampening inflation).

Students of the post-World War II economy know these cycles. The best examples include the 1960s Kennedy-Johnson boom, which lowered unemployment to 3.5 percent in 1969 and raised inflation (virtually nonexistent in 1960) to almost 6 percent. This was followed by two recessions in the Nixon-Ford years. Under Carter, the economy revived — but inflation spurted to 13 percent in 1980. Carter’s inflation bred the devastating 1981-1982 recession under Reagan. It pushed unemployment to 10.8 percent in late 1982 but ended double-digit inflation.

There is also the general consensus among economists that Presidents have less power over the economy than the typical person may think.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/u...ght-think.html

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fe...red-2019-12-27

The general economy is doing fine.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...emma-explained

[aja_christopher]

If you think this argument is accurate, it would suggest center-left Presidents are helpful. It doesn't necessarily provide any argument for voting for Warren or Sanders over Trump.

I never made that argument -- I just posted data that shows a much higher rate of growth under Democratic leadership over the last twenty-five years.

You're the one working to twist it into a narrative that backs Republicans by focusing solely on the last three years under Trump.

Again -- you'd rather argue based on political bias than accept data on it's own merits.

The way I see it there are mainly two ways to think about lying in politics. Either it is bad or it is a legitimate strategy.

If it's bad, we should treat it as if it's bad every time it's done. We should encourage politicians to be better, to meet very high standards of honesty, and reward those that do.

If it's a legitimate strategy, it really doesn't matter how often it happens.

I disagree with this completely.

Let's take the example of heroes like Spider-Man, Batman and Superman -- we know they lie almost daily if only to preserve their secret identities.

It would be better if they didn't lie -- and didn't have to lie at all in their profession -- but we understand why they lie, and we also understand that it's to the benefit of others (like providing affordable health care for the poor and those with pre-conditions).

This doesn't apply to villains like Lex Luthor or Loki, who will lie for power or to harm others -- there is a difference there, and it's clear to those with a conscience. Lying to keep black people from voting or to keep children separated from their mothers is not the act of "hero" by any stretch of the imagination -- it is the act of a villain.

Continuing said analogy, I can't think of any hero that is completely honest at all times, but we still wouldn't brand them the same as villains in that respect.

[aja_christopher]

"Trump, Obama tie for Americans' most-admired man"

"President Donald Trump and former President Barack Obama have tied for the title of Americans’ most admired man, according to Gallup’s annual survey — marking the first time the current commander in chief has achieved the distinction and the 12th consecutive first-place showing for his immediate predecessor.

Eighteen percent of U.S. adults nominated Trump when asked which man “living today in any part of the world” they admired most, while another 18 percent identified the most recent Democratic president.

The results of the poll, conducted Dec. 2-15, were split sharply along party lines, with 45 percent of Republicans selecting Trump for the honor and 41 percent of Democrats opting for Obama.

Trump captured the support of 2 percent of Democrats and 10 percent of independents, while Obama garnered 3 percent support from GOP respondents and 12 percent from independents. Last year, 13 percent of Americans chose Trump as the most admired man, and 14 percent picked him in 2017, the first year of his presidency. He placed second to Obama in both surveys.

Apart from the two presidents, no other man attained the votes of more than 2 percent of those questioned in the 2019 poll.

Rounding out the list of Americans’ 10 most admired men are former President Jimmy Carter, technology entrepreneur Elon Musk, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, Pope Francis, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, California Rep. Adam Schiff, the Dalai Lama and investor Warren Buffett.

Among Americans’ most admired women, former first lady Michelle Obama claimed the prize spot for the second year running and was the only woman to achieve double-digit support.

The other top-ranking women include first lady Melania Trump, former talk show host Oprah Winfrey, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, climate activist Greta Thunberg, Queen Elizabeth II, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley."

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...red-man-091023

[numberthirty]

Mets' analogy about tire slashing doesn't wash. It's comparing apples and oranges. I mean, let's say a baseball player gets a hit every fourth at-bat, so he's hitting .250. That's considered a good, but not great batting average. However, if a basketball player makes a free throw every fourth time at the line, he has a free throw percentage of 25%. That's considered an absolutely terrible free throw percentage.

You have to look at the context. Most people don't slash their neighbor's tires, so even doing it once every seven days would be considered a bad thing. But lying? Well, there are all kinds of lies and all kinds of things to lie about. I mean, Trump lies about his golf game, but no one cares about that. But when he lies about the shenanigans he pulled to get himself elected, it's something we should all care about.

In the context above what is in blue, each of the players regularly fail at the task at hand.

If you can't even except that Democrats are regularly lying and move on to talk about that Republicans lie more regularly, the entire exercise is pointless.

- If the amount that Democrats lie is "Regular" or "Acceptable" and Republicans only double that amount, what are we even talking about? What's the point.

- If there is a point in talking about it and it is an issue? Then it is an issue in both instances, but a greater issue because Republicans are more than doubling the amount that Democrats lie.

[jetengine]

If you lie because of military secrecy or because joe q public will not understand or outright misinterpret your facts (let alone allowing your enemies to warp them) then thats fair enough.

Its when your literally making up shit to hurt peoole and fuel your own greed is when its a problem.

[numberthirty]

If you lie because of military secrecy or because joe q public will not understand or outright misinterpret your facts (let alone allowing your enemies to warp them) then thats fair enough.

Its when your literally making up shit to hurt peoole and fuel your own greed is when its a problem.

Look at the Democrats that had to be tossed over sexual harassment, and ask yourself if that's all they are lying about.

[The Overlord]

At least this is a clearly stated argument about why Republicans are beyond the pale.

I have expressed my own views on the southern strategy. I think coded and not-so-coded racism is exaggerated as a reason for Republican success in the South (it mainly comes down to the national media and technology making the parties less local and more national, technology allowing Northern Republicans to move to the South and boost the party there, and southern conservatives joining the conservative party.)

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post3176370
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...gy#post3178044

It is also worth noting how long it took the transition from the South as going from solidly Republican to solidly Democratic to occur, and that when Democrats lost state legislatures in places like Arkansas (2012) and Alabama (2010) the majority of the people with really retrograde views on race in the old South (IE- they think intermarriage should be illegal and backed segregated schools) had been long dead.

What are you basing this on? Can you refute the video and article I posted? Can you answer why the vast majority of African Americans vote Democrat? Do you think the racism that animated the segregation era no longer exists in America? Because I find examples of the GOP using the racism well past the 60s.

The Willie Horton ad:

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/1/181212...istle-politics

Reagan's racism:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and...-richard-nixon

https://fair.org/home/ronald-reagans...s-no-surprise/

Racism is still a major part of the GOP today:

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...blicans-066643

Indeed denying the vote to minorities is part of their plan to stay in power:

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/65978...ournalist-says

The Southern Strategy in the 60s was the beginning of the GOP's subtle appeals to racists, not the end, Trump just removes the subtlety.

Edit: That may be a lot of articles, but frankly I want what I say to be backed by sources, rather than me just saying stuff on a message board.

Trump has massive support from the GOP base, why do you think that is? Could it be that these ''Never Trump Republicans'' are a small minority within the party and the majority support Trump?

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, as well as 2018, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day posted profiles of Indiana State Senator Dennis Kruse, who in the quarter century that he’s worked in Hoosier State politics, whose political philosophies are downright theocratic. You see, Kruse doesn’t believe there should be a separation of church and state, has drafted legislation to make abortion illegal including in cases of rape and incest, sponsored a proposed amendment to the state constitution to ban gay marriage, denies the science of evolution, and tried to not just legalize school prayer but make it mandatory. Oh, and he was the sponsor of Indiana’s SB 101, the anti-gay “religious freedom” law, and after it passed, Dennis Kruse released a statement where he lied his homophobic arse off, trying to claim that the bill wasn’t that bad, and anyone who thought it would create an environment of discrimination “hadn’t read the bill” (They had, and it clearly was.). Even the bills he pitches that aren’t religiously motivated are downright insane, including one that was an attempt to nullify the United Nations Agenda 21 environmental treaty, because he’s convinced it’s a plot to take away citizens’ property rights, somehow.

Kruse won re-election in 2018 after getting to run unopposed yet again for his seat, now bringing his streak to four straight mid-term elections without an opponent since 2006. Since he’ll be in office until 2022 and we don’t currently have any significant updates on him, . We’ll set aside his profile at this time, and profile a different wacky Republican today instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 816-40, since this was established in July 2014.)


Betty Price

Welcome to what is the 816th original profile here at “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” profile, where we’ll be discussing Betty Price, a member of the Georgia House of Representatives from District 48 who was first elected to office in a special election back in 2015. She is the wife of former Congressman and corrupt Trump Cabinet member Tom Price, so it might seems like we’re about to discuss some potential corruption and general fanatacism in this entry, given her husband’s history. Betty Price, however, barely got her career started and didn’t get much of a chance to have any ethical lapses before she just straight up put her foot in her mouth.

A bit of cursory research showed us that Betty Price has an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that seems rather absolute, and that in her brief voting record, that she was opposed to same sex marriages, as evidenced by her vote to allow religious officials to deny performing a marriage ceremony.

Now, the main reason we’re profiling Betty Price is how in October of 2017, she pitched the idea of quarantining people mandatorily who were HIV Positive, wondering out loud if there were any legal way to do so:

"And I don’t want to say the quarantine word, but I guess I just said it. Is there an ability, since I would guess that public dollars are expended heavily in prophylaxis and treatment of this condition. So we have a public interest in curtailing the spread. What would you advise or are there any methods legally that we could do that would curtail the spread. It seems to me it’s almost frightening the number of people who are living that are potentially carriers, well not carriers, with the potential to spread, whereas in the past they died more readily and at that point they are not posing a risk. So we’ve got a huge population posing a risk if they are not in treatment.”

And wouldn’t you know it, when this fascist paranoia about the spread of HIV was reported on by the media, Betty Price had the very predictable response of claiming her comments were “taken out of context”. Even though she was recorded, and that recording was played, and in it, she starts off indicating she didn’t want to say the word “quarantine” because she knew that it was wrong to even suggest such a thing.

Betty Price was swept away by the Blue Wave in 2018, being defeated by Democrat Mary Robichaux by 139 votes. This was even though she was caught coaching her own mother into who to vote for, and admonished for doing so by poll workers in her district. Price felt that the loss to Robichaux was close enough that she demanded a recount, but that only proved she actually lost by 150. At this time, we would like to wish her our finest “good riddance” salutes to send her off.

[Tami]

Polish PM furious at Putin rewriting history of second world war

Poland’s prime minister has launched a furious response to claims by Vladimir Putin that Poland was partially responsible for the outbreak of the second world war.

It is the latest episode in a bitter conflict over historical memory that is likely to intensify as the 75th anniversary of the victory over Nazism approaches next May.

Mateusz Morawiecki issued a four-page statement on Sunday accusing the Russian president of “repeated lies” over the history of the conflict. Earlier, the Polish foreign ministry said Putin’s words resembled “propaganda from the time of Stalinist totalitarianism”.

Morawiecki was responding to a speech by Putin at a summit of heads of former Soviet states in St Petersburg on 20 December. Putin gave the assembled leaders an hour-long history lecture, drawing on a sheaf of archival documents he had brought with him. The Russian president has also raised the issue at a number of other meetings in recent days, including a gathering of top army generals in which he called Poland’s ambassador to Nazi Germany “a scumbag and an antisemitic pig”.

Morawiecki said Putin was playing with history in order to distract from international pressure over issues such as sanctions and a doping ban for Russian athletes. “I consider president Putin’s words as an attempt to cover up these problems. The Russian leader is well aware that his accusations have nothing to do with reality.”

The Polish foreign ministry also summoned the Russian ambassador to complain to him about Putin’s comments last week.

[InformationGeek]

All about him as always. Never mind anyone else.

Thank you to highly respected Jewish leader Dov Hikind for his wonderful statements about me this morning on @foxandfriends.

[zinderel]

Look at the Democrats that had to be tossed over sexual harassment, and ask yourself if that's all they are lying about.

And what happened to those lying Democrats? The ones who got caught lying about sexual harassment? Oh, right. They got ‘tossed’.

Meanwhile, a Republican who lies as often as he eats got to be president. And any attempts made to hold him accountable for his lies is met with a resounding chorus of ‘well-meaning’ posters crying “WHAT ABOUT OBAMA?!?!?!”

No double standard at all. No deflection, either. Nope.

Democrats are expected to devour their own at the drop of a hat, and we do nothing so well as live up to that expectation every time. Meanwhile, Republicans ride the disunity of their rivals to a win every time. It’s why Trump will be the first impeached president to get re-elected.

[Malvolio]

In the context above what is in blue, each of the players regularly fail at the task at hand.

If you can't even except that Democrats are regularly lying and move on to talk about that Republicans lie more regularly, the entire exercise is pointless.

- If the amount that Democrats lie is "Regular" or "Acceptable" and Republicans only double that amount, what are we even talking about? What's the point.

- If there is a point in talking about it and it is an issue? Then it is an issue in both instances, but a greater issue because Republicans are more than doubling the amount that Democrats lie.

The context of my sports analogy is about more than just math. It's often said that in baseball, you can fail 7 out of 10 times and be considered a great hitter. That's the nature of the game. Meanwhile, in basketball, a free throw percentage of anything under 60% often gets a player benched.

But as to Mets' question of where I draw the line, I would say that any lie that directly leads to people being significantly harmed is a bad lie. But a lie that was said out of naivete, is not necessarily bad. I speak of Obama's "If you like your health plan, you can keep it" line. He didn't realize that there were people who had shitty health plans, but liked them because they never put in catastrophic claims on them, and so didn't know just how shitty the plans really were. Maybe Obama should have said, "If you already have a good health plan, you can keep it."

[Mister Mets]

I never made that argument -- I just posted data that shows a much higher rate of growth under Democratic leadership over the last twenty-five years.

You're the one working to twist it into a narrative that backs Republicans by focusing solely on the last three years under Trump.

Again -- you'd rather argue based on political bias than accept data on it's own merits.

You posted it, and put particular sections in bold. That did leave me with the impression that you agreed with it.

If I was mistaken, I'll gladly drop the topic.

I disagree with this completely.

Let's take the example of heroes like Spider-Man, Batman and Superman -- we know they lie almost daily if only to preserve their secret identities.

It would be better if they didn't lie -- and didn't have to lie at all in their profession -- but we understand why they lie, and we also understand that it's to the benefit of others (like providing affordable health care for the poor and those with pre-conditions).

This doesn't apply to villains like Lex Luthor or Loki, who will lie for power or to harm others -- there is a difference there, and it's clear to those with a conscience. Lying to keep black people from voting or to keep children separated from their mothers is not the act of "hero" by any stretch of the imagination -- it is the act of a villain.

Continuing said analogy, I can't think of any hero that is completely honest at all times, but we still wouldn't brand them the same as villains in that respect.

The difference in the situation you pose isn't about how often the superheroes lie, but about the circumstances under which they lie.

I'm not Kant, claiming that if a murderer is chasing an innocent woman to your house, and asking you where she is so he can kill him, that it would be wrong to lie.

There are some situations in which it's fine for politicians and public servants to lie, and I've said as much in earlier posts. We don't expect people in undercover investigations to break cover if asked about it, authorities to divulge information about people on witness protection, generals to reveal military secrets, etc.

But it hasn't demonstrated that Democratic lies all fall in the category of acceptable situations, that it was all the equivalent of Bruce Wayne covering for being Batman.

And what happened to those lying Democrats? The ones who got caught lying about sexual harassment? Oh, right. They got ‘tossed’.

Meanwhile, a Republican who lies as often as he eats got to be president. And any attempts made to hold him accountable for his lies is met with a resounding chorus of ‘well-meaning’ posters crying “WHAT ABOUT OBAMA?!?!?!”

No double standard at all. No deflection, either. Nope.

Democrats are expected to devour their own at the drop of a hat, and we do nothing so well as live up to that expectation every time. Meanwhile, Republicans ride the disunity of their rivals to a win every time. It’s why Trump will be the first impeached president to get re-elected.

Justin Fairfax is still in office.

https://www.progress-index.com/news/...n-for-governor

I kinda hope you're wrong on Trump being reelected.

[numberthirty]

And what happened to those lying Democrats? The ones who got caught lying about sexual harassment? Oh, right. They got ‘tossed’.

Meanwhile, a Republican who lies as often as he eats got to be president. And any attempts made to hold him accountable for his lies is met with a resounding chorus of ‘well-meaning’ posters crying “WHAT ABOUT OBAMA?!?!?!”

No double standard at all. No deflection, either. Nope.

Democrats are expected to devour their own at the drop of a hat, and we do nothing so well as live up to that expectation every time. Meanwhile, Republicans ride the disunity of their rivals to a win every time. It’s why Trump will be the first impeached president to get re-elected.

If you are trying to narrow it down to them, you are already kidding yourself about things to start with.

Before anyone ever decided to put their foot down about dealing with it, their was an existing system to cover lies and pay people off with tax payer money that Democrats took the same benefit from that Republicans did.

If Democrats stayed "Mum..." about such a system?

That is being perfectly fine having a system based on a lie in place that will cover them the same as a Republican.

That's not just some "Small Change..." lie that we should be overlooking.

Is it good that there was eventually an honest Democrat that rocked the boat, and got some things done about it? Absolutely.

Is it good that Democrats(after some, like Nancy Pelosi, initially tried to defend some of them...) eventually made it impossible for some of those guilty of sexual harassment to stay on? Absolutely.


You know what would have been a whole lot better than that?

To take the torches and pitchforks to a system that would shield someone guilty of sexual harassment years ago. Not wait until an honest Democrat finally pulled a Frank Serpico so that folks would know that said system even exists.

[numberthirty]

...

Justin Fairfax is still in office.

https://www.progress-index.com/news/...n-for-governor

I kinda hope you're wrong on Trump being reelected.

Exactly.

If Democrats are going to make it impossible for him to stay in office, they haven't yet.