All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Mister Mets]

"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

I really don't want to see what Trump's ego would be like if next year he's a point ahead of Obama (even at 17 percent to 16 percent.)

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?

There were a few links in the earlier posts in the general questions of the southern strategy.

There was a piece by Matt Ygleisias for the Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ublican/45956/

Sean Trende had written about Eisenhower's success in the South, and the major reasons for the shift.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...nt_107084.html

Matt Lewis wrote about the South's large concentration of rural voters.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-gop-went-south

I'm not eager to watch a 16 minute video.

As for the Jeet Heer piece (I'm familiar with him; I've quoted two of his articles on the past and the dude has interesting thoughts on comics), it focuses primarily on Trump's support in the South Carolina primary, and on views held by larger minorities of Trump supporters than among typical Republican voters. There is a conflation of racism and xenophobia.

He gives too much credit to the National Review for its influence in making the error of promoting states rights (at the time in an anti-communist context) and doesn't quite explain how the southern strategy worked: Did racists who want liberal economic policies join Republicans because they wanted racist local control? It also neglects that the south has become very different, both in the sense of how long it took Republicans to start regularly winning controls of legislative bodies and governor's mansions, and in terms of how much better the views of modern southerners are than those of the past.

[aja_christopher]

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.

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.

Why would I disagree with the link I posted -- it was factual evidence that Democrats presided over much better economies over the past 25 years.

There's nothing to agree or disagree with because it's factual data -- you're the one who tried to limit it to three years and to stretch it out over a longer period to serve your own political purposes instead of just accepting the fact that Americans have benefited more under Democrats than Republicans during the last few decades.

Even in the rest of your commentary, you're still engaging in false equivocation and generalized attacks against Democrats -- I specifically mentioned lying to give people health care as opposed to lying to keep black people from voting, yet you act as if the issue of "situation" wasn't even discussed.

Why? Because you know which party is trying to give people access to health care and you know which party is trying to keep black people from voting.

People can't have an honest discussion with you because you either ignore or refuse to simply accept facts you disagree with -- even when faced with irrefutable evidence, you try to claim Democrats are "exaggerating" things (racism, homophobia, climate change, etc) based on your own personal bias or try to find loopholes in statistics that tell the truth about Republican failures and Democratic successes.

Meanwhile, you have no problem exaggerating about Obama being routinely dishonest or Democrats supporting "open borders".

At this point, it just seems you're practicing your own philosophy where being dishonest (like Trump) is a legitimate political strategy.

-----
"Trump: Democrats are the party of "open borders and crime."

Trump falsely equates Democrats’ opposition to a border wall to opposition to border security. Democrats support adding Border Patrol agents, drone and other technology surveillance at the border.

Democrats say a wall is not the most effective tool to deter illegal immigration nor to stop drugs from coming into the United States, because many immigrants arriving at the southwest border are turning themselves in to Border Patrol agents (not running away from them) and most of the drugs coming in from the southern border are smuggled at legal ports of entries, not in between.

Even then, many Democrats voted for a fiscal year 2018 spending bill appropriating about $1.6 billion for border fencing.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-misleading-c/

[Tami]

North Carolina Republicans fuming after Mark Meadows retirement clears way for wife’s friend to replace him

It appears Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) timed his surprise retirement to help a friend of his wife gain an advantage in the race to replace him.

The Tea Party conservative announced he would leave Congress for an as-yet-undefined role with President Donald Trump early Dec. 19, about 30 hours before the filing deadline in North Carolina, reported Politico.

Lynda Bennett, a GOP activist and real estate agent who is friends with the lawmaker’s wife, launched her Republican primary campaign later that same day.

[worstblogever]

I really don't want to see what Trump's ego would be like if next year he's a point ahead of Obama (even at 17 percent to 16 percent.)

It would be great if there were a Republican that Republicans could rally around who wasn't a bag of s***.

Alas, your party's inspirations these days all look like the contents of a fertilizer factory.

[The Overlord]

I really don't want to see what Trump's ego would be like if next year he's a point ahead of Obama (even at 17 percent to 16 percent.)

There were a few links in the earlier posts in the general questions of the southern strategy.

There was a piece by Matt Ygleisias for the Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ublican/45956/

Sean Trende had written about Eisenhower's success in the South, and the major reasons for the shift.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...nt_107084.html

Matt Lewis wrote about the South's large concentration of rural voters.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-gop-went-south

I'm not eager to watch a 16 minute video.

As for the Jeet Heer piece (I'm familiar with him; I've quoted two of his articles on the past and the dude has interesting thoughts on comics), it focuses primarily on Trump's support in the South Carolina primary, and on views held by larger minorities of Trump supporters than among typical Republican voters. There is a conflation of racism and xenophobia.

He gives too much credit to the National Review for its influence in making the error of promoting states rights (at the time in an anti-communist context) and doesn't quite explain how the southern strategy worked: Did racists who want liberal economic policies join Republicans because they wanted racist local control? It also neglects that the south has become very different, both in the sense of how long it took Republicans to start regularly winning controls of legislative bodies and governor's mansions, and in terms of how much better the views of modern southerners are than those of the past.

That Atlantic article just naive and tone-deaf to me and seems like apologetics. He said ''but I think the evidence strongly suggests that conservative politicians get the votes of white southerners precisely because white southerners like conservative positions on taxes, moral values, and national security.'' Ever thought a lot of southern conservatives mix their ''moral values'' with racism? People used use the bible to justify Jim Crow, so why they use ''moral values'' to defend racism? Do you honestly think racism is dead in the South:

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/...blacks/601129/

By the 1960s the democrats were the ones pushing the Civil Rights agenda, are we to believe that didn't have a huge impact on the way the South voted?

Its like this BS about how icons are of the Confederacy are about ''heritage, not hate'', but its a heritage of slavery and racism. When Lee Atwater brought up appealing to racists in the South as part of the strategy in that recording, are we supposed to excuse that because it may have not been the only reason for the switch?

This seems like another ''the Civil War was about states rights'' and ignoring the main right the South wanted was to have slaves. Even if the switch was not exclusively about racism, racism is in the mix and taints everything. Because I can find articles that will say racism is a big part of this switch:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...hern-strategy/

And you actively seem to be ignoring the GOP racism I brought up after the 60s, Reagan's comments about Africans, the Willie Horton ad, the attempts at disfranchising black voters, those were all mentioned in those articles I brought up in the post you just quoted, it seems like you are ignoring that.

The Religious right was first motivated by opposition to desegregation, more than anything:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...origins-107133

So clearly a lot of relgious conservatives were fine with filing their racism under ''moral values''. Also, conservatives who used their ''moral values'' to discriminate against LGBT people, comes from the same bigotted playbook as the old Southern Strategy, the ''small government'' ideology never seems to apply to those the GOP would make into scapegoats.

Do you think the GOP has a problem with racism?

[PaulBullion]

Kansas police officer off force after fake claim McDonald's workers wrote 'pig' on coffee cup

"This was completely and solely fabricated by a Herington police officer no longer employed with the agency," the police chief said Monday.

He didn't realize there'd be security cams revealing his false flag attempt.

[worstblogever]

In both 2014, as well as 2015, “Crazy Stupid Republican of the Day” published profiles of Dean Young, a three-time failure as a Congressional candidate for U.S. House in Alabama’s 1st Congressional District who says that “homosexuality is a deviant and destructive lifestyle”, opposed gay marriage by saying, “I’m against homosexuals pretending they’re married”, and is a dedicated ally of Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, as both work together to try and place as much Christian idolatry as possible in government buildings because “This isn’t a Muslim nation, this is a Christian nation.” Young has also called for the impeachment of President Obama without any justification, and during a completely separate interview, he stated his belief that Obama was born in Kenya. Young also believes that something sinister was done by the government during the Benghazi attacks, and that the IRS goes out of their way to target Christians, which is amazing considering the churches themselves get tax-exempt status. Young has yet again failed to unseat Congressman Bradley Byrne in 2016, and could resurface in 2018.

On this date in 2017, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" profiled David Brumbaugh, a four term member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives who first arrived back on the scene when else… but in the 2010 Tea Party Wave. During his tenure, Brumbaugh stood out even among Oklahoma Republicans for his unabashed and irrational attempts to flat out criminalize abortion. In 2016, he sponsored legislation that would revoke the licenses of any doctor performing an abortion (which is still a legal, constitutionally protected medical procedure) And of course, he scoffed at the Roe v. Wade ruling being an obvious hindrance to his bill, if passed ever holding up against legal challenges. Even more bizarre? More reasonable conservatives pointing out that the state of Oklahoma is already in a budget crisis, and if it was sued for passing an obviously unconstitutional law, it would just end up creating more debt for taxpayers to have to pay off. Again, Brumbaugh shrugged, apparently content that any legal difficulties would just be taken care of by the Almighty himself, saying, “If we take care of the morality, God will take care of the economy. I’ve heard almost every argument today about judicial challenge to this legislation and after much prayer and study, I ask myself this question… Do we make laws because they’re moral and right, or do we make them based on what an unelected judicial occupant might question or overturn?” Brumbaugh also voted for bills to to protect Oklahomans from the threat of the dreaded United Nations Agenda 21 conspiracy theory, attempted to nullify the Affordable Care Act. Brumbaugh passed away suddenly from a heart attack in April of 2017.

On this date in 2018, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” profiled Ed Gillespie, the long time Chairman of Republican National Party, who unsuccessfully challenged Senator Mark Warner for his seat in 2014, and in 2017, ran for Governor of Virginia in a campaign that was a telling example of how quickly the modern Republican Party has sold out any respectability it might have had, and how they have become the Party of Trump. First, let’s talk about Ed Gillespie’s resume. He cut his teeth working as a Congressional aide for Congressman Dick Armey, helping draft the GOP’s “Contract with America” after the 1994 Red Wave Election. He then quickly rose to be the Communications Director of the RNC in 1996. He briefly worked for John Kasich’s failed presidential bid in 1999, before signing on to the campaign of Bush 43, and helping organize the 2000 RNC, as well as working for a frequent spokesman for the Bush campaign, even throughout the Florida recount that year. By 2003, he was the Chairman of the RNC from 2003-2004, and also served as a counselor to Bush himself in his White House after the departure of Karl Rove. Gillespie himself never really ran for office, content to pull strings away from podiums on several Republican campaigns, but getting filthy rich as a lobbyist throughout his entire career, until that 2014 run against Mark Warner. On display were many of the tropes you see from the GOP, including Gillespie’s long-term opposition to same sex marriage (including supporting a Constitutional amendment against it), as well as wanting to defund Planned Parenthood. In his 2017 gubernatorial bid, Gillespie was the mainstream candidate, meanwhile running in the primary against full-on white nationalist and CSGOPOTD alumni Corey Stewart. And, as has been atypical of GOP candidates who try to maintain dignity rather than cave in to racism, Ed Gillespie won that matchup, and advanced to face Ralph Northam in the general election. But, and we can’t emphasize this enough… after cementing that win, for whatever reason, Gillespie started diving hard to the right in the build-up to the 2017 election in Virginia, going out of his way to voice his opposition to removing Confederate statues (only two weeks after Neo-Nazis terrorized Charlottesville over them), starting running ads claiming that the immigrant gang MS-13 was sending criminals into the country, and after trying to keep Baron F***face von Clownstick at arm’s length throughout most of the campaign, caving and appearing on stage with him and listening as he spread lies and fear-mongered about immigrant gangs. Just to take it a step further, he also started stoking fears that felons were illegally voting, because why not attack the integrity of our elections, while you’re at it? In any event, Ed Gillespie was trounced as a part of that 2017 election.


On this date in 2016, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" profiled Nancy Mace, a challenger in the 2014 U.S. Senate Primary in South Carolina to Senator Lindsey Graham for his seat in Washington, D.C, choosing to be the first candidate in that race to attack Lindsay Graham for admitting climate change exists, and tried claiming that a “recent freeze” disproves the phenomenon. Factor in also, that Nancy Mace’s background in South Carolina politics comes from being the co-owner of FITSNews, a “news” outlet in South Carolina best known perhaps for, while under Mace’s Leadership, leading a smear campaign in 2010 against gubernatorial candidate (and future South Carolina Governor) Nikki Haley, insisting that she had taken part in a series of extramarital affairs. Of course, that sort of tactic wouldn’t work against a lifetime bachelor like Lindsey Graham, so we were spared a repeat of that sort of seedy attack from Mace. No, instead she was one of a pair of primary candidates who decided to gay-bait Graham. While Mace reblogged a post from a supporter that called the Senator a “nancy boy”, at least she didn’t go as far as Dave Feliciano, who said that Graham is “ambigiously gay".

It had been awhile since we checked in on Nancy Mace, and she opted to run for an office slightly less elevated than the U.S. Senate, winning a seat in the South Carolina House of Representatives in 2018, to represent District 99 in that body. In that year, the Blue Wave actually helped Democrat Joe Cunningham flip South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District in Congress, after he defeated Katie Arrington in the general election for the right to replace “the Love Gov” Mark Sanford. As such, SC-1 is one of the seats that Republicans are most determined to flip back red, what with its partisan lean supposedly being +10 Republican.

And, of course Nancy Mace isn’t content to simply remain a state legislator and build up her credibility… she’s running for that seat in the U.S. House instead, jumping into a GOP Primary field with 3 other Republicans for the chance at it. She’s currently leading in fundraising, and other than perhaps a primary challenger trying to score points against her because she’s not completely opposed to abortion in all cases, she’s currently the front-runner.

This would be a great time for us to share a link to a spot for folks to donate to Joe Cunningham’s campaign if they want to, because Nancy Mace’s Libertarian/Republican viewpoint is the last thing our country needs right now.

[SquirrelMan]

News coming in that Trump may have benghazied the US embassy in Baghdad.

[jetengine]

News coming in that Trump may have benghazied the US embassy in Baghdad.

Oh ****, anyone dead ?

[Tami]

Scary videos of the attempted storming of the US embassy from @Mustafa_salimb
with the @washingtonpost
who is on the ground. The PMF is an umbrella group of semi-autonomous state-sanctioned (mostly) Shia militias, many of which are backed by Iran.

Twitter link with Videos

[Tami]

Trump accuses Iran over storming of US embassy compound in Baghdad

Donald Trump has accused Iran of orchestrating an attack on the US embassy in Baghdad after dozens of Iraqi Shia militia supporters broke into its compound after smashing a door and storming inside.

The angry demonstration followed US airstrikes on Sunday against three camps in Iraq and two in Syria. The bases belonged to the Iran-backed Kata’ib Hezbollah militia group, which is formally part of the Iraqi army. At least 25 fighters were killed and dozens injured.

The Pentagon said the strikes were in response to a rocket attack on Friday against a US base in Kirkuk, in which a US civilian contractor was killed and four other Americans were hurt. It described them as “defensive”.

An Associated Press reporter at embassy in Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone saw flames rising from inside the compound and at least three US soldiers on the roof.

Iraq: protesters set fires and throw stones at US embassy in Baghdad - video

[worstblogever]

News coming in that Trump may have benghazied the US embassy in Baghdad.

That's an unfair use of that verb. Benghazi was deemed a "spontaneous uprising" without any discernible thing to have started it.

These folks in Baghdad are pissed off quite specifically about a specific thing that Trump carelessly f***ing did that resulted in actual deaths.

[Tami]

Iraq Protesters Break Into U.S. Embassy Compound in Baghdad

BAGHDAD — Protesters broke into the heavily guarded compound of the United States Embassy in Baghdad on Tuesday and lit fires inside to express their anger over American airstrikes that killed 24 members of an Iranian-backed militia over the weekend.

The men did not enter the main embassy buildings and later withdrew from the compound, joining thousands of protesters and militia fighters outside who chanted “Death to America,” threw rocks, covered the walls with graffiti and demanded that the United States withdraw its forces from Iraq.

The situation remained combustible, with protesters vowing to camp outside the compound indefinitely. Their ability to storm the most heavily guarded zone in Baghdad suggested that they had received at least tacit permission from Iraqi security officials sympathetic to their demands.

The American airstrikes on Sunday have resulted in the most serious political crisis in years for the United States in Iraq, stoking anti-Americanism and handing an advantage to Iran in its competition for influence in the country.

Protesters storm US embassy compound in Baghdad

Witnesses at the scene reported flames rising from inside the compound and at least three US soldiers on the roof of the main building inside embassy.

It was not clear what caused the fire at the reception area near the parking lot of the compound.

A man on a loudspeaker urged the mob not to enter the compound, saying: "The message was delivered."

The US ambassador to Iraq and other staff were evacuated from the embassy.

[Tami]

U.S. Baghdad ambassador evacuated from embassy amid protests: Iraqi officials

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The U.S. ambassador and other staff have been evacuated from the embassy in the Iraqi capital Baghdad as protests rage outside, two Iraqi Foreign Ministry officials told Reuters on Tuesday.

The ambassador and staff left out of security concerns. One official said a few embassy protection staff remained. Thousands of protesters and militia fighters gathered on Tuesday outside the main gate of the embassy compound to condemn U.S. air strikes on bases belonging to an Iranian-backed militia in Iraq.

[Tami]

No one killed (as far as I can tell), but Trump and Pompeo shoudl be held accountable for what happened.