All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Oh, you mean like President Obama. Yeah we really fucked that one up.

There was also that time we picked Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry, and Al Gore.

Basically the only time we didn't pick the eventual nominee in the last 30 years was when Tom Harkin ran 1992.

But go off.

Yeah, and if we are being honest, Iowa basically was the game changer for Obama. That was the one shocked everyone and made them think he had a real chance to win.

[KOSLOX]

Yeah, and if we are being honest, Iowa basically was the game changer for Obama. That was the one shocked everyone and made them think he had a real chance to win.

I'd concede the point for Republicans here though. They like to go in on some real bozos lately.

[Mister Mets]

Daaaamn, Liz Warren completely owned Chief Justice Roberts.

https://mobile.twitter.com/advodude/...509467136?s=19

I know I'm responding to something that happened a few days ago, but it merits a look at the other perspective.

https://www.mediaite.com/election-20...macy-in-trial/

Adam Schiff quickly said that Roberts was acting honorably.

The chief justice sat with a quizzical look on his face for several seconds after the question. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) spoke up on behalf of Roberts in response.

“I would not say that it contributes to a loss of confidence in the chief justice,” Schiff said. “I think the chief justice has presided admirably.”

Warren's tactic was a clever way to get around the guardrails against Senators showboating during the impeachment trial, by asking a question guaranteed to go viral, but it seems unwise. If Roberts was acting dishonorably, he would be the type of guy who would respond to insults with unfair decisions. If he was acting honorably, any hint otherwise is an unfair slander.

AEI's Adam White had an effective pro-Roberts argument.

The fact that Senator Warren submitted this question, and the fact that Chief Justice Roberts read it unflinchingly, highlights how well and dutifully he executes his office, and how poorly and cynically she executes hers.

I don't recall any liberals suggesting Roberts acted inappropriately in response to the question.

Murkowski claimed that it played a role in her decision to vote against calling for more witnesses.

[Mister Mets]

They are literally running Republican immigration policy, Mets.

With the support of yourself and the vast majority of Republicans who give Trump record approval.

Interesting how you can see imaginary open borders but can't see the white nationalists operating openly right at the heart of your party.

-----
"Leaked emails from White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller from 2015-2016 reveal an obsession with white nationalism, the Confederacy and the denigration of black and Hispanic communities.

More than 900 private emails between Miller and Breitbart News were examined by the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch section, revealing that 80 percent of the messages pertained to race or immigration. The emails sent between March 2015 and June 2016 straddle Miller's time as an aide to then-Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions and his later role on as a senior adviser for then-presidential candidate Donald Trump's campaign. Miller's emails tout eugenics and white nationalist conspiracy theories and offer news tips to Breitbart on how to cover immigration and amplify stories about black and Hispanic crime.

Katie McHugh, the former Breitbart editor who leaked the emails to Hatewatch, told the SPLC that "what Stephen Miller sent to me in those emails has become policy at the Trump administration." McHugh, who publicly renounced her alt-right ties and beliefs in an interview with Buzzfeed News, was fired from Breitbart in 2017 for an anti-Muslim tweet.

Miller's conversations with McHugh and the Breitbart editors show him suggesting story ideas as well as directing the right-wing publication on how to report anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim news narratives.

The now-senior Trump administration adviser who has been instrumental in crafting the president's immigration policies delves into topics ranging from Central American refugees to Nazi literature."

https://www.newsweek.com/leaked-step...n-splc-1471279

The story on Miller has been rather vague on what he actually said in hundreds of emails that is so outrageous that no reasonable person can agree with it. Looking at the original SPLC series, many of the arguments are stretches. He disagrees with birthright citizenship, which most of Europe & Asia don't have, and this makes him the equivalent of White Nationalists because they don't like it either. He's interested in writers who have made bad arguments, but that doesn't necessarily mean he agrees with the arguments. The SPLC doesn't provide any evidence to refute Miller's belief that Latino immigrants are less likely than whites to be upwardly mobile.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...tremists-views

A similar approach on the emails of a left-wing advisor would show that many have views in common with Leninists and Maoists when it comes to the problems of income inequality, and it would be dishonest as well. And I'm sure there will be overlap between the views of plenty of Democrats and people explicitly calling for open borders, to go with that comparison.

The problem with white nationalists isn't that they disagree with birthright citizenship, or benefits for children who came to the country illegally. The argument that these views aren't just wrong (and I agree that they're wrong) but beyond the pale is foolish in a country where so many are against any increases in immigration.

[aja_christopher]

The story on Miller has been rather vague on what he actually said in hundreds of emails that is so outrageous that no reasonable person can agree with it.

Kind of like imaginary hypothetical open borders, depending on your perspective.

The difference being Stephen Miller's racially antagonistic emails and Trump's attacks on black and brown people actually exist and both are currently creating and enforcing American immigration policy.

And I assume by your response that you have no problem with that.

You keep trying to pretend your party doesn't have white supremacists/nationalists (like Stephen Miller and Donald Trump) creating immigration policy for them -- just know that your "plausible deniability" that Republicans don't promote racism, xenophobia and homophobia expired long before Trump became president.

You're not fooling anyone but yourself with that argument, and I doubt even you believe it.

I'll add that it's really sad that it's come down to you defending people like Stephen Miller presiding over immigration in this country -- sad, but expected.

Actually, it's not sad so much as a reminder of why I say the only real solution is to remove Republicans from power.

[KOSLOX]

You're not fooling anyone but yourself with that argument, and I doubt even you believe it.

Mets has told us time and time, bad take after bad take, who he is.

Its time to start believing he really does just hold all these trash beliefs.

[Tami]

As others stand at attention for anthem, Trump fidgets, points, pretend-conducts the band

President Donald Trump has repeatedly said all Americans should “stand proudly” during the national anthem, and publicly chastises those who don’t as disrespectful of the troops.

But during the national anthem at his own Super Bowl watch party Sunday night, a brief video posted to Instagram shows Trump greeting guests, adjusting his chair, and straightening his suit jacket as other attendees — including first lady Melania Trump and their teenage son — stand with their hands over their hearts. As “The Star Spangled Banner” crescendoes, Trump raises both of his hands in the air, and twirls them around as if conducting the music.

The video was included in an Instagram story by a real estate agent for a Russian-American firm who frequents Mar-a-Lago and other Trump properties and events.

[Mister Mets]

There should be no borders. Human movement should not be criminalized.

That does not mean people will be coming around spreading diseases. There will still be organisations set up to help people with immigration.

The difference is that it won't be a hostile experience, the threat of turning people away because they're sick wouldn't exist. Instead they'd be treated like any other citizen.

Your concerns are unwarranted, unless you think people are going to be coming into the country to purposely spread diseases.

Most people won't try to infect others with contagious diseases, but we do see plenty of examples of recklessness, as well as desperate people trying to get to places with more resources, especially if there's a quarantine.

At which point he'll start getting treated like a real contender and will have to deal with the ensuing attention accordingly, instead of just complaining about the media.

Guess we'll see how he handles it -- hopefully better than last time around but I wouldn't put money on it.

------
"Sanders once likened poor whites to blacks under Apartheid"

The fact the decades-old remarks are surfacing now shows that desperation is setting in to stop him, his campaign responded.

Bernie Sanders once compared poor white Vermonters to black South Africans suffering under Apartheid. At other times, he likened the plight of some working people as well as imported foreign laborers to slavery.

Now that Sanders is rising in the polls and expected by many to win Iowa, rival Democrats are bringing to light his decades-old comments in an effort to question the senator’s stances on race and to underscore the challenges he has had with black voters.

“I’m not surprised, given the momentum of Sanders, that the knives come out. But it does in fact raise legitimate questions about how he approaches race,” said Cornell Belcher, who polled for President Barack Obama and is neutral in the primary.

“A lot of minorities and sensible voters are going to look at these statements and say it’s incredibly insensitive and nonsensical to compare black South Africans in this way to workers in Vermont”,” Belcher said. “It’s just an insensitivity about him on racial issues that are problematic. To compare slavery to workers not having a say in a company that pays them in Vermont is enormously insensitive.”

Sanders struggled with the issue of race in the 2016 presidential campaign, when he exploded on the political scene by nearly winning Iowa and then taking New Hampshire against Hillary Clinton. But when he had to compete in states with more diverse populations, Sanders lost badly.

Quentin James, executive director of The Collective, a political committee that aids African-American candidates, said that Sanders' biggest liability with black voters is that he never attempted to build meaningful relationships with black lawmakers and community figures until he ran for president.

“He’s been in office for decades, but now that he needs black people he’s here,” said James, whose group is neutral in the race. He added adding that Sanders has improved his outreach to African Americans since 2016 but still needs to explain his past comments about race.

“Every white candidate in the nomination process has a problem with race,” James said, “Biden answered for it and was held accountable. Now it’s Sanders' turn.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...artheid-110404

If Sanders wins Iowa (really odd to think it's only a few hours until this is settled; this may be the most important day in the Democratic primary) he'll get a lot of scrutiny, but it might not be enough to stop his momentum.

To be honest, even though I'm black none of this really surprises or upsets me -- both Biden and Sanders are from a different era, when racial matters were viewed very differently from today. Holding either of them to account for things they might have said back then is always going to be fertile ground for political land mines, and personally I'm more interested in what they've done in the last decade or so than what they did back before many of us were born.

Sanders' biggest problems come from his lack of engagement with the black community until he needed black votes -- what he or Biden might have said forty or fifty years ago mainly just opens them up to questions of what they've done since then to address those shortcomings.



Agreed -- but Sanders had best be prepared to address these controversies openly, just as Biden had to with Kamala.

On a related note, word is that Kamala will likely endorse Biden but one wonders if Warren will do the same for Sanders if it comes to that.

Do you think Sanders was obligated to engage more with the black community as a Senator? An excuse he has is that Vermont is two percent black, and he probably didn't see himself as a potential presidential contender until very recently (he ran in 2016 in his mid-70s because Elizabeth Warren opted not to run.)

Progressives and (democratic) socialists need to remember that Republicans are the problem -- moderates aren't calling for socialists to be jailed or shot.

Just that they respect the integrity of the other Democratic candidates and the Democratic platform that they are using to promote their policies.

-----
"Montana state GOP lawmaker says Constitution calls for socialists to be jailed, shot"

"A Republican state representative from Montana is coming under fire from his own party after he reportedly claimed earlier this weekend that the Constitution calls for socialists to be jailed or shot.

According to the Billings Gazette, state Rep. Rodney Garcia (R-Mont.) first made the remark after expressing concerns about socialists he said were “entering our government” and their presence in his district at an event on Friday.

He reportedly reiterated his remarks when pressed about his previous comments in an interview with a reporter for the local publication on Saturday.

“So actually in the Constitution of the United States (if) they are found guilty of being a socialist member you either go to prison or are shot,” the Montana Republican said.

Though he was reportedly unable to show what portion of the Constitution he was citing to back his claim, he continued to double down on his comments in the interview, saying, “They’re enemies of the free state.”

“What do we do with our enemies in war? In Vietnam, (Afghanistan), all those. What did we do?” he continued.

“I agree with my Constitution. That’s what makes us free. We’re not a democracy, we’re a Republic Constitution,” he also said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...cialists-to-be

The guy's an idiot, but he is one man and he is condemned by his party.

Not at all -- I'm not even a Democrat, so now you're just blindly trying to pick fights.

You might have answered this before, but what is your party registration? What primaries do you vote for?

Some good news on what is a really dark day for me personally:

The Daily Stormer is running out of money and letting staff go.

That is good news. I hope things go better for you.

[aja_christopher]

Do you think Sanders was obligated to engage more with the black community as a Senator?

I think if he wants black people to vote for him, then he needs to do more than just show up and "reach out" during elections.

Do you think it's okay for Republicans like yourself to overlook Stephen Miller's attacks on people of color and then to act as if those people should find that acceptable as well before just moving on to the next topic?

Mets has told us time and time, bad take after bad take, who he is.

Its time to start believing he really does just hold all these trash beliefs.

Good advice.

[Mister Mets]

Mets has told us time and time, bad take after bad take, who he is.

Its time to start believing he really does just hold all these trash beliefs.

Obviously you disagree with who I'm willing to vote for (although you would disagree with Trump supporters more) but aside from that, what specific beliefs do you dislike?

while not doing the same for Biden. kindly stop insulting my intelligence.

There are unique arguments against Sanders, who identifies as a socialist and has much more expensive policies.

Kind of like imaginary hypothetical open borders, depending on your perspective.

The difference being Stephen Miller's racially antagonistic emails and Trump's attacks on black and brown people actually exist and both are currently creating and enforcing American immigration policy.

You keep trying to pretend your party doesn't have white supremacists/nationalists (like Stephen Miller and Donald Trump) creating immigration policy for them -- just know that your "plausible deniability" that Republicans don't promote racism, xenophobia and homophobia expired long before Trump became president.

You're not fooling anyone but yourself with that argument, and I doubt even you believe it.

I'll add that it's really sad that it's come down to you defending people like Stephen Miller presiding over immigration in this country -- sad, but expected.

From what I've read, Stephen Miller is on the far end of what's acceptable but still within the spectrum, but this does get to a key question: Where would you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable immigration policy? At what point are someone's views so disgusting as to be out of bounds in polite society, and cause for removal from any appointed public office?

For myself, the line would be when they want to deport American citizens who have been able to support themselves and violated no laws, or when they express beliefs about inherent qualities of ethnic groups (IE- believing something bad about all Mexicans.)

[aja_christopher]

From what I've read, Stephen Miller is on the far end of what's acceptable but still within the spectrum, but this does get to a key question: Where would you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable immigration policy?

I've already told you (repeatedly) that I'm not interested in arguing hypotheticals with you, especially given your blatant biases against the "left" and your constant need to demonize Democrats in order to justify your "conservative" arguments.

If you and Miller basically see eye to eye on immigration policy, then there's not much else to say on the matter.

[Mister Mets]

I've already told you (repeatedly) that I'm not interested in arguing hypotheticals with you, especially given your blatant biases against the "left" and your repeated need to demonize Democrats in order to justify your "conservative" arguments.

If you and Miller basically see eye to eye on immigration policy, then there's not much else to say on the matter.

My question wasn't about hypotheticals, but your specific views on where the line is between an acceptable and unacceptable position.

I don't see eye to eye with Miller. I disagree with him, but I don't think disagreeing with someone means that one should automatically call for their removal from appointed office.

[aja_christopher]

My question wasn't about hypotheticals, but your specific views on where the line is between an acceptable and unacceptable position.

I don't see eye to eye with Miller. I disagree with him, but I don't think disagreeing with someone means that one should automatically call for their removal from appointed office.

I never said anything about automatic removal -- just that he promotes white nationalism in his immigration policies.

Just like you never said that you disagree with his policies -- in fact, you've defended them more than once.

The best way to remove him -- or the next Republican who is just like him or worse -- is to remove Republicans from power for as long as possible.

It will probably take decades (at least) to fix all the damage your party has done to the integrity of our country -- both political and ethical.

And that's without even getting into climate change, which should not be ignored in this discussion.

Fortunately for you, Americans have short memories, and even Trump probably won't sink your party for long.

They know that so long as there are large numbers of racists in America, Republicans will always have a base.

[Tami]

From what I've read, Stephen Miller is on the far end of what's acceptable but still within the spectrum, but this does get to a key question: Where would you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable immigration policy? At what point are someone's views so disgusting as to be out of bounds in polite society, and cause for removal from any appointed public office?

When their views result in mass incarceration of children, along with the deaths of a number of them. When it results in families being forcibly separated. When it results in people who servied honorably in the Military being deported or having family members deported, when it undermines American values and Communities and even Businesses that depend on immigrants.

[aja_christopher]

I could add more to what Tami said, but I don't feel I need to.

I'm more curious as to how anyone could find this acceptable, much less find Stephen Miller acceptable on any political spectrum.

Miller stopped pretending Republicans care about democracy, and so should you.
-------



"STEPHEN MILLER WANTS NEW FAMILY SEPARATIONS PLAN BECAUSE HE THINKS IT WORKED THE FIRST TIME: REPORT"

"White House senior adviser Stephen Miller and others within the Trump administration are reportedly considering a number of options for a new child separation plan at the southern border just months after the "zero-tolerance" policy blew up in the administration's face. Miller believes the original policy used this spring to separate about 2,500 children who crossed the border with their parents illegally served as a good deterrent to illegal immigration, according to The Washington Post on Friday.

Miller, 33, had long branded himself as a staunch supporter of immigration reform, and was seen as a primary architect of the "zero-tolerance" policy. While the policy initially curbed illegal border crossings throughout the spring and summer, more began to occur in August and likely even more in September, according to the Post.

Miller's role in the policy led protestors to station themselves outside of his Washington apartment complex in June. Protesters also called Miller a "fascist" while he was in a Mexican restaurant. Other officials like Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen were targeted by protesters, while White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was refused service at a restaurant over the child separation practice.

The first practice, announced publicly by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in April, split up immigrant families into separate facilities. The children were scattered around the country, and some families still have yet to be reunited.

Trump administration officials were reportedly worried about enacting another child separation plan after the first resulted in outcries from Democrats and Republicans. The president, however, campaigned heavily on redoing the country's immigration policies and even building a border wall along the U.S. border with Mexico in order to stop immigrants from illegal crossings.

Trump had yet to secure proper funding for the wall, and the "zero-tolerance" policy struck fear into Republican lawmakers as to how it would look to women voters around the country with the midterm elections coming up in the fall.

The president first claimed he was unable to stop the separations from occurring at the border, but on June 20 he signed an executive order ending the practice."

https://www.newsweek.com/stephen-mil...-trump-1167844