All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[worstblogever]

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

In other words, Republicans will be blaming Iran, without any verifiable evidence.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

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

Fat chance of that happening. Trump is already blaming Iran, so too will Republicans who have no choice but to shield him from this clusterfuck. With the assigned bogeyman firmly in place, and no one on right in Congress with the balls to challenge him, Trump will get off scot free.

[Tami]

A White House adviser is flip-flopping on whether China gave him information on Joe Biden's son after Trump asked Beijing to investigate the Bidens - Oct 10, 2019

First time I've seen this

An informal White House adviser on China is giving conflicting accounts to media organizations over whether China gave him information about former Vice President Joe Biden's son's activities in China, the same week that President Donald Trump urged the country to probe the Bidens.

First, the adviser, Michael Pillsbury, told The Financial Times he got "quite a bit of background on Hunter Biden from the Chinese."

"I tried to bring up the topic in Beijing," Pillsbury said. "I've never seen them get so secretive in my entire life. They would discuss ICBM warheads sooner than talk about what Hunter Biden was doing in China with Vice President Biden."

Hours later, Pillsbury changed his story, telling C-SPAN he hadn't spoken with FT in over a month.

But FT's Washington bureau chief released an email exchange between him and Pillsbury, in which Pillsbury wrote, "Actually, I got quite a bit of background on Hunter Biden from the Chinese."

[Tami]

'Fiction': Mike Pompeo denounces movie 'The Report' about CIA's use of torture

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a Friday tweet denounced a new movie about the investigation into the Central Intelligence Agency's use of torture on terror suspects following the 9/11 attacks as "fiction."

"The Report" is based on actual events surrounding the Senate Intelligence Committee's drafting of a 6,700 page report on the CIA's torture program. It follows the story of Daniel Jones, played by Adam Driver, his efforts to lead the investigation, and the federal government's attempts to stymie the investigation.

Pompeo, who led the CIA before being appointed as Secretary of State, said he watched the movie and did not like its portrayal of the intelligence community.

"To be clear: the bad guys are not our intelligence warriors. The bad guys are the terrorists," Pompeo wrote in a tweet. "To my former colleagues and all of the patriots at @CIA who have kept us safe since 9/11: America supports you, defends you and has your back. So do I."

[WestPhillyPunisher]

'Fiction': Mike Pompeo denounces movie 'The Report' about CIA's use of torture

Let me see if I've got this right: Pompous Pompeo defended the very same intelligence apparatus Donald Trump slammed after investigating Russia for having interfered with the 2016 election. Can you say "disconnect", boys and girls?

[Tami]

Let me see if I've got this right: Pompous Pompeo defended the very same intelligence apparatus Donald Trump slammed after investigating Russia for having interfered with the 2016 election. Can you say "disconnect", boys and girls?

Only it's all twisted, since the movie is based in fact: Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture

[Mister Mets]

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?

The GOP has a problem with racism. The main thing we might be arguing about is one of degree. I'm not denying that racism had an impact on changing voting patterns. But I don't see any indication that it had most of the impact and that this is the end of the story. It would be absurd to suggest that race was anywhere close to as important a factor for the changing Republican fortunes in the South as slavery was to the civil war.

To go with some specific points you mention, "Moral values" would cover a lot of categories beyond racism. Moral values is also more of an umbrella term than a justification.

Trende's article noted that Eisenhower won Southern votes well before LBJ's Civil Rights legislation or Barry Goldwater's support for states rights, and that conservatives were making gains in the preceding generations.

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

Jay Cost covered similar territory, noting that while there are things that Republicans did at the time that would be considered sketchy today, that was common practice by both parties at the time. A lot of the southern strategy discussions compare the worst things Republicans did to the best things the Democrats did, or to a Democratic party somewhat similar to today's, which is just isn't close to the case.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...rn-republicans

There were other factors for Republican success in the South including northern Republicans moving into the South, after air conditioning made it more comfortable to live there. That changed the mix of local political conversations.

Regarding Willie Horton, it was a bad policy for Dukakis to allow weekend furloughs to someone serving a life sentence for murder. The failures of the state's furlough program (which contributed to dozens of escapes) were mentioned in debates by Al Gore.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...sy_138879.html

As for Reagan's comments, that's a different discussion from political strategy. A politician made a disgusting joke in the early 70s.

I'm not going to be able to respond to every claim in every link, partly due to lack of time. I get the counterpoint that this evasion could be used to defend really bad causes (IE- a defender of Nazis claiming that he doesn't have time to respond to 25 factually accurate atrocities) although in the case of something like that, they probably won't be able to defend three atrocities.

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/

You did say you weren't making any argument and just posting data.

The data is there. The conclusion is the source of disagreements. It's a small sample set, so it may be down to luck, or correlation (because Democrats won less elections than Republicans they tend to come into office following Republican screw-ups). It's worth noting the authors of the study weren't making any conclusions, and noted the lucky breaks Democrats had.

As for honesty in politics, I don't think believing that one's cause is just makes one justified in lying. Almost everyone believes their side is right. Of course Democrats believe they'll make health care better, just as Republicans believe those approaches aren't worth the tradeoffs. I'm sure Trump believes that maintaining power will make things better for others. It is my view that tricking voters, even if you think it's for their own good, isn't one of the situations where politicians should be allowed to lie. I appreciate the honesty of anyone who disagrees.

[Celgress]

You know it would be nice if non-political news stories (including those from around the world) were posted in this thread sometimes. I'm just saying.

[Gray Lensman]

Mets, the fact that one of the theater commanders of WW2 could win votes across demographic divides shouldn't be taken as proof of any trends in either direction. Who he was and what he had done before running for office transcended any divide. I'm sure if Chester Nimitz had run for office for either party it would have been the same - those guys would be more like the exceptions rather than any rule.

[Theleviathan]

noted the lucky breaks Democrats had.

They also looked at only "shocks" and admitted to an inability, or unwillingness in the context of that paper, to study policy impacts.

Even then, the trend is not arguable. It's real. IMO it stems from a need to better balance our systems. During Dem administrations any attempt, even small ones, are able to shift economic policy away from wealthy hoarding and control over politics and towards more liquid, equitable wealth.

Too many things are crippling economic flexibility for too many people. Only one party, for many decades now, has prescribed policy to fix that. It shouldnt be shocking then, for that party to improve the economy when it is in charge.

[Jack Dracula]

They also looked at only "shocks" and admitted to an inability, or unwillingness in the context of that paper, to study policy impacts.

Even then, the trend is not arguable. It's real. IMO it stems from a need to better balance our systems. During Dem administrations any attempt, even small ones, are able to shift economic policy away from wealthy hoarding and control over politics and towards more liquid, equitable wealth.

Too many things are crippling economic flexibility for too many people. Only one party, for many decades now, has prescribed policy to fix that. It shouldnt be shocking then, for that party to improve the economy when it is in charge.

I have a problem with the whole idea of using the economy as a measuring tool for the health and well-being of a nation. It makes more sense to base the state of the US by how quickly and efficiently our government responds to the needs of it's most vulnerable citizens.
Is the point of our country to provide for it's citizens or to facilitate greater profits for the corporations that deign to grace us with their patronage as long as we give them the necessary tax breaks?

[Malvolio]

As for honesty in politics, I don't think believing that one's cause is just makes one justified in lying. Almost everyone believes their side is right. Of course Democrats believe they'll make health care better, just as Republicans believe those approaches aren't worth the tradeoffs. I'm sure Trump believes that maintaining power will make things better for others. It is my view that tricking voters, even if you think it's for their own good, isn't one of the situations where politicians should be allowed to lie. I appreciate the honesty of anyone who disagrees.

I'm not so sure about that. I think Trump cares about no one but himself. If he can trick his supporters into believing that he will help them, too, all the better. But he doesn't care if it works out for them as long as it does for him. As the great Daffy Duck once said, "Consequences, shmonsequences, as long as I'm rich."

[JCAll]

You know it would be nice if non-political news stories (including those from around the world) were posted in this thread sometimes. I'm just saying.

Aside from politics what is the news? Shootings, I guess, but half of those are political too.

[Farealmer]

I'm not so sure about that. I think Trump cares about no one but himself. If he can trick his supporters into believing that he will help them, too, all the better. But he doesn't care if it works out for them as long as it does for him. As the great Daffy Duck once said, "Consequences, shmonsequences, as long as I'm rich."

This, it's a bit naïve to think everyone, let alone politicians, do what they think is best for other people.

[Tami]

This, it's a bit naïve to think everyone, let alone politicians, do what they think is best for other people.

Your statement seems like a blanket statement, a judgement that it is impossible to actually have people who care about other people. If that were true, the human race would have died off long ago.

No one is perfect, and even the best of actiosn may have a somewhat selfish aspect to them, but I do believe that there are people out there who can and do try their best to help others. Even in the face of placing themselves in harms way.

There are are people, not just politicians, who are selfish, ignorant, corrupt, greedy, egotistical, power hungry, and so on. But not everyone is like that.