All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2015, 2016, 2017, as well as 2018, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day posted profiles of Washington State Senator Michael Baumgartner, who has policy stances like putting an end to no-fault divorce, a return to the gold standard (which economists say would tank not just the American economy, but the global economy), U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations and the World Trade Organization (based off of Agenda 21 conspiracy theory fervor), and privatizing Social Security. He has not only voted against the legalization of gay marriage, but also would like gay couples to be prevented from adopting children. He also showed himself to be bizarre on the campaign trail in 2012, running attack ads against Maria Cantwell for being “unmarried” and undermining the role of the mother in child rearing, as well as responding to a reporter’s question about his thoughts on Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments by later e-mailing that reporter a picture of a Navy SEAL who died in Afghanistan and a note telling him to “go f*** himself”. He apologized for the latter unprofessional reaction, only to later say his apology was only sent on behalf of his staff, and retract even that apology. The 2018 Blue Wave scared Baumgartner enough that he didn’t run for re-election.

On this date in 2019, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” profiled Rhode Island State Senator Nicholas Kettle, who first stumbled his way into office to represent District 21 at the age of but twenty in the 2010 Tea Party Wave, after winning the GOP Primary by only 23 votes, and then the general election with only 51% of the vote. He became the youngest person elected to the State Senate at the time. That historic milestone will not, however, be what is remembered about Kettle, who kept narrowly hanging on for four terms in office. In February of 2018, he was arrested after his girlfriend found his iPad lying about, and discovered that on it, Kettle had taken nude photos of her without her consent. What was Kettle’s motive? To trade the nudes for nude photos of a friend’s wife. Kettle’s text message history showed he asked for tips on how to film but be “stealthy”, so he was well aware he was committing a crime. Also, Kettle and his “friend” talked about trying to swap partners, proposing group sex with their girlfriends, and a tendency to share pictures of their own genitalia with each other… While police were investigating that matter, a second complaint got filed by a former page within the Rhode Island State Senate in 2011, who claimed Kettle tried extorting him for sexual favors when he was a teenager, (yes, it’s another Republican caught chasing boys) threatening he would end his own political aspirations if he did not concede. Kettle had even boasted of the sexual encounter with two friends, who came forward to help investigators. Nicholas Kettle’s colleagues were ready to vote on his expulsion when he resigned, and in his resignation letter, he whined about not receiving due process. That due process saw him end up pleading guilty to two counts video voyeurism and getting three years of probation to avoid jail time. He’ll likely be on sex offender lists for the rest of his life, which means we aren’t foreseeing him having a political comeback. As such, we’ll retire his profile at this time and profile a different wacky Republican today instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 842-40, since this was established in July 2014.)


Rob Brooks

Welcome to what is the 842nd original profile here at “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day”, where we’ll be discussing Rob Brooks, who has served as a member of the Wisconsin State Assembly from District 60 since first being elected in the 2014 mid-term elections. However, Brooks’ career nearly came to a screeching halt in late 2018 when he drunkenly wandered into a bar with several female Republican colleagues, and declared he was buying everyone drinks while refusing to do so for fellow Republican Jessie Rodriguez, announcing, “except Jessie because she's Hispanic.” While the other legislators present did confirm that exchange took place, they chose not to speak publicly about the never-ending spray of inappropriate sexual remarks that continued to fall out of Brooks’ cake hole throughout the evening. Yes, THAT Scott Walker.

On the legislative end, Rob Brooks is a Personhood supporter, who voted for legislation to require “potential abortion-reversal drugs be made available” (as if abortion is reversible), as well as sponsoring AB 179, a bill aimed at creating requirements for abortions that “result in premature birth”. Meanwhile, he’s so “pro-life” that he voted for AB 455, to authorize any child of any age to hunt with an adult, so that toddlers can legally carry a handgun if their parents are dumb enough to let them.

He’s also got draconian ideas for welfare recipients, including voting to increase work requirements for them, and supporting the failed conservative policy of drug testing people on welfare, even though the results discover that there’s statistically no drug use by people on assisted benefits because they can’t afford drugs. (Not to mention it’s a violation of their 4th Amendment rights.)

We have a feeling that Rob Brooks hasn’t learned a goddamned thing from his misadventures of putting his foot in his mouth, except not to do it where witnesses are present. And we’re figuring he’s going to try to just keep his mouth shut and stay in office as long as he can still breathe through his mouth, and make Wisconsin as regressive as possible.

[SquirrelMan]

Klobuchar's hoping to get some delegates in her home state. As is Warren.

Bloomberg's hoping to get some delegates period.

.

But why would they hope that if they know it will just make it easier for Sanders? Why would they do that if they know it will cause more chaos at the convention? They know they cannot jump to the lead.

[SquirrelMan]

Public Enemy Fires Flavor Flav Over Bernie Sanders Flap



Public Enemy Fires Flavor Flav After Bernie Sanders Rally Spat

How can Sanders hope to unify the country while he's tearing hip hop legends apart?

[WestPhillyPunisher]

John Lewis Urges Public To Vote During ‘Bloody Sunday’ Anniversary In Selma

The Georgia Democrat and civil rights icon spoke on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where he and others faced state-sanctioned violence for peacefully marching.

**********

Will Bernie Sanders Really Be A Drag On Down-Ballot Democrats?

Super Tuesday might give us the best idea yet. I've said this before: It's NOT just about the presidency, Dems have to take back the Senate, or whoever wins the Oval Office will have to deal with Mitch McConnell who's already on record saying he'll bury any and all bills that land on his desk should Trump lose. Can Sanders unite the party and get voters to the booth for down ballot races?

**********

Amy Klobuchar Cancels Minnesota Rally After Protesters Demand Justice In Myon Burrell Case

The 2020 candidate has been criticized for her handling as prosecutor of a case that put a Black teenager behind bars for life without enough evidence. At this point, it's no longer a question of IF Klobuchar drops out of the race, but WHEN. That could happen 48 hours from now if she loses big on Super Tuesday.

**********

Pence Calls It ‘Understandable’ Don Jr. Accused Dems Of Hoping ‘Millions’ Die Of Coronavirus

In the interview with Jake Tapper, the vice president asked Americans not to politicize the virus — as he politicized it. Well, I call it understandable that Pence couldn't afford to counter what Don Jr. said because that would've pissed off his daddy.

**********

Susan Collins Won’t Say If She Voted For Trump In 2020 Republican Primary

The Maine senator vowed not to vote for Trump in 2016, citing his “lack of self-restraint” and his “unsuitablity for office.” What changed? I'm sure Madam Pearl Clutcher fretted a lot, expressed concern, perhaps even a touch of worry....then fell in line and voted for the Orange Menace. That's what she does.

[jetengine]

I just find that hard to believe. This is completely anecdotal obviously, but in my experience dissenters (who aren't victims of discrimination or had family members killed during the Cultural Revolution) tend to be those just unhappy with their standard of living. I agree that most aren't necessarily looking for western style democracies but I've never met anyone wanting to go back to days when everybody was starving. I can't imagine Russians yearning for their empty grocery store shelves either.

Mass unemployment
Hideous poverty
Rise in drug use and dealing
Rampant and obvious undemocratic shenanigans
Nation overrun with western buisnesses that take money out of the nation.

Dont get me wrong, people suffered under the USSR, but there was at least a sense of "We are all in solidarity" (more or less) now you have the mega rich spitting on the poor and going "Yes this is democracy you fools"

I do think the issue in this thread is theres no balance. These communist regimes DID do good things, albeit often outweighed by the evil but to ignore the good things is to try and paint socialism/communism as cartoonishly evil, theres also the elephant in the room of Amrrican intervention visa vi Coups or sanctions meaning they cant actually run their nation well.

Again, not white washing these regimes. Just saying the DnD chart doesnt always work.

[Kieran_Frost]

Not to come off as a smug douche or anything, but if you want to talk about communism I think you need to have at least a rudimentary understanding of Asian history and politics, given that it's the one continent where communism has some actual long term traction and shows no signs of going away anytime soon.

Coolio. Won't discuss it then. I bow out gracefully (awwww, look at me being all Mayor Pete)

Nobody's gonna be Biden's VP because Biden won't win. Buttigieg made a calculated decision here, he knew that he was gonna have a poor showing on Super Tuesday and rather than having that stain his political star for future runs, he chose to bow out with dignity, which I can respect. Now if he comes out and decides to endorse Bloomberg or something like that, then I'm going right back to hating him, but I suspect he will not do that because he wants to run for president again in the future and will be wary of attaching his name to a losing cause.

My advice is a) don't hate people, period b) don't hate people in your own party. Life's too short, and that energy helps no one.

Yes, after the London Bridge attack a fake tweet was spread throughout the Conservative media sphere first before hitting the internet wholesale. It was Corbyn saying the London Police had killed a man today with the implication being either was ok with him being a terrorist or he cared more about the killing then the terrorist part, both of which tie in with the "Corbyns a terrorist sympathiser l" hogwash. Now I'm not saying Corbyn didn't cause his own problems, but don't bloody tell me that its all his own fault when vile **** like that is happening.

Who was the tweet from? I remember he got lambasted for his "we don't KNOW it was Russia" comments after they tried to murder dissidents on UK soil. I don't remember the London attack one, I'll look it up. Good to know.

The rich white gays are devastated.

Ha! I love it when people just prove my point. Look at the venom. It's hard to believe this is the same poster who gleefully mislabelled LGBT+ people. I'm just so shocked how much inner animosity you clearly have for gay men, shocked I say!

To paraphrase....capitalism is the worst system, except for all the other ones.

Ohhhh... I know that's a known quote(ish) phrase, but it's giving me West Wing vibes. I recall someone saying something along the lines of "it is, it is the worst, except for every other system in the world."

This doesn't help him at all unless that minority wins him a swing state. Minorities already like Biden the most of the candidates and given their hate of Trump they are going to vote en masse for the dem nominee regardless. So while it might please that demographic they were already going to vote for him anyway. For someone like Sanders, who has obvious struggles connecting with minorities, it would make sense but not for Biden whose most important thing is going to be winning a swing state that Trump won in 2016 like Ohio which is why I said Sherrod Brown. If for some reason they think Texas might be in play then someone like Julian Castro would make sense. If California was in doubt (its not) then Kamala Harris makes sense.

All very good points. Biden wouldn't gain half as much as Sanders would (his age is such an issue, having such a young VP would off-set that)

[Kieran_Frost]

QUESTION: what happens to the votes for Super Tuesday already cast, for candidates no-longer running?

In a lot of ways, Mayo Pete represented the worst of American politics.

With Steyer and Mayor Pete having called it quits, how long before Klobuchar reads the writing on the wall and throws in the towel? As things stand, I can’t see her lasting past Super Tuesday which could also be Warren’s last stand. As for Bloomberg, god only knows what he’ll do if he doesn’t make any headway this coming week. And that would bring up a tremendous bit of irony, given all the diversity at the beginning of the primary season, what with minorities, women, even a LGTBQ candidate, it’ll all come down for Democrats to a couple of cranky old white men for the nomination.

Sad, but true. Labour has the same problem in the UK; they just don't get behind the non-white, str8, male candidates enough; despite CLEARLY desperately wanting one. Put in the work, guys! It doesn't "just" happen. Though interesting both Scottish Labour and Scottish Conservatives have been led by openly LGBT+ leaders.

Right here is where it feels like it falls apart(to me...)
If the people are making a repeated, small dollar donation to a candidate that puts him/her in a better position to play according the the current set of house rules?
How is that not the people deciding?
No one forced them to create that reality. They made the decision to do so.

But the election does that anyway? You're insisting on an unnecessary second 'check-and-balance'. What's the gain? Some very worthy candidates wouldn't be able to get off the ground, because their message won't get heard without the money, honey. And still didn't answer the fact this actual means the uber rich gain an advantage in the race, if they have access to their own huge funds.

Surely it's a fairer playing field if all candidates get A MAXIMUM of $100 million to spend in the whole campaign (including the election - so primaries you really should only use $35 million). How or who gives it doesn't matter, because it will be even. And become much more about who's message is stronger and was delivered better, than who had the bigger war chest to flood the market.

[Kieran_Frost]

I'm beginning to think if Sanders wins the Democratic Party will split into two new parties before the general election. I just feel it in my gut after watching the numbers of Centrist Dems who detest Sanders and everything he stands for (rightly so, IMO).

QUOTED. FOR. TRUTH! God, he's just like Corbyn, far more popular outside his party than within. And yes, based on the Bernie Bros, who could blame the centralists for not liking what he "inspires"? Even now are the Bernie Bros being nice on Pete's Twitter page. HA! Are they, margaret! (I don't think that's a phrase...)

I do suspect that Democrats aren't willing to have a ticket with two white guys right now. It was the norm up until recently, and it might be a ticket at some point in the future, when identity politics isn't a consideration, but at this point, too many activists would be bothered.

It is also possible that Biden will select a white woman as a running mate. Gretchen Whitmer is the Governor of Michigan. Kristen Sinema is doing okay as a Senator from Arizona. Amy Klobuchar could appeal to the center, while Elizabeth Warren would appeal to the wonk left.

Given Biden's age, there would be pressure to pick someone who voters feel is a plausible President. While winning a swing state is helpful, the most important rule for the running mate is to do no harm.

I agree, I think the Democrats don't want a white, str8, male tickets. I think Biden will pick a female VP, I think Sanders would pick a minority (racially or sexually) as his VP. How many times has the VP been "not str8, white, male"? I know McCain had Sarah Palin, who else?

Public Enemy Fires Flavor Flav Over Bernie Sanders Flap

Public Enemy Fires Flavor Flav After Bernie Sanders Rally Spat

I'm so confused, neither of those articles actually just came out and said it. Who was fired for what now?

Sincerely believing in something has nothing to do with whether they'll affect real change, this is about how to properly impact the world with their agenda and Black Lives Matter do this so much stronger than Occupy did. They do this because they know it's not wise to avoid participating in political parties and they do more than protesting. They're the major organisations which are the face of the left activism because there is nobody doing what you're saying in America.

I agree and disagree (to a degree... eee eeee, ha!). I think in very specific cases (yes, like the Stonewall Riots) that change can be in-acted, finally, through an uprising using some violence. BUT... and this is very important, the specific times it works is never planned. It just happens, the oppression and the hurt gets too big to bottle up and it explodes. The problem is so many of these "protests" that turn violent GO LOOKING TO BE THAT RIOT. It's not organic. And it doesn't work. I think you're right recognising groups like BLM that work on an agenda, and combine protest with a political movement is what protests should do. Not go looking to become that explosion of rage.

What about the riots in Hong Kong? I can see that as another example of bottled up oppression just exploding. Sadly, they'll never win. A country (that is basically a city) cannot take on and defeat China. Just won't happen.

There are no good dictators, PwrdOn.

Purely as a phrase, this is hilarious to see someone have to say this.

[numberthirty]

...


I'm so confused, neither of those articles actually just came out and said it. Who was fired for what now?

Long story short, it's kind of like this.

Let's say you have A/B/C. Over the years, A and C have agreed that a lot of things about B are an issue(drug use/not taking business seriously/there's more, but you get it...)

Now, let's say that most folks agree that A is where the bulk of the group's political slant comes from. So... B apparently gets hip to that the band will be doing an event with Sanders. Apparently, B has some sort of an issue. That issue is apparently why A has seen fit to fire B from the band.

The hitch?

Is it really about that, or does it have something to do with the issues that A and C agree that B has? Some combination of the the two?

I'd say "No telling, but B has been cut loose for the meantime."

[Steel Inquisitor]

QUOTED. FOR. TRUTH! God, he's just like Corbyn, far more popular outside his party than within. And yes, based on the Bernie Bros, who could blame the centralists for not liking what he "inspires"? Even now are the Bernie Bros being nice on Pete's Twitter page. HA! Are they, margaret! (I don't think that's a phrase...)

Oh yeah.

I agree and disagree (to a degree... eee eeee, ha!). I think in very specific cases (yes, like the Stonewall Riots) that change can be in-acted, finally, through an uprising using some violence. BUT... and this is very important, the specific times it works is never planned. It just happens, the oppression and the hurt gets too big to bottle up and it explodes. The problem is so many of these "protests" that turn violent GO LOOKING TO BE THAT RIOT. It's not organic. And it doesn't work. I think you're right recognising groups like BLM that work on an agenda, and combine protest with a political movement is what protests should do. Not go looking to become that explosion of rage.

What about the riots in Hong Kong? I can see that as another example of bottled up oppression just exploding. Sadly, they'll never win. A country (that is basically a city) cannot take on and defeat China. Just won't happen.

Agreed. Protesting has changed society for badly needed progress. However, that's not what PwrdOn is advocating - they want a complete sweep of the board, like the October Revolution rather than Stonewall.

Purely as a phrase, this is hilarious to see someone have to say this.

LOL

[Steel Inquisitor]

Rosa Luxumberg continues to focus on the wrong target, I don't like Mayor Pete but its mind boggling to say that while Trump's president.

[Saffron]

Well despite the impression that you get of Chinese history living in the West, the Great Leap Forward only lasted for four years and outside of that time period, mass starvation wasn't really an issue even before the market reforms opened up the economy. This actually contrasts quite starkly with the pattern before the communists came to power where there would be a major famine once a decade, and indeed the Chinese population grew so quickly under Mao's rule that the one child policy had to be instituted to slow it down. Sure, life was hardly luxurious in the bad old days and putting food on the table was a daily struggle, but I think any old timer would tell you that they also had a sense of purpose and communal identity that doesn't really exist in the modern age when all people can think about is making money and climbing the social ladder. And in addition to the older folks there are, just like in the West, lots of students and intellectuals who hold radical beliefs and are especially disillusioned by how hypocritical the Chinese government has become, waving the red flag while simultaneously selling the country out to the billionaires. And granted these types of people can seem invisible now that the country has been overrun by newly minted upper middle class cretins who think nothing of class identity and only care about scoring designer handbags, but if you spend some time and actually talk to the working people I think you'll see a different side of the story.

Don't play that game with me. You live in the west too, and neither of us were alive to experience the Mao years. But our parents and grandparents did - mine tell of hardships well after the GLF (and they were relatively well off, being in the military). That there was mass starvation isn't some western propaganda and "life was hardly luxurious" downplays the poverty and poor living standards of that period.

And yeah, you do get people grumbling about modern China, because nostalgia is a thing. People always complain about how terrible things are now. But how many of those people actually want to go back to being impoverished? I don't think most people are ideological enough that they think about life that way. It's more of a "life sucks rn, I wish there was change" but not having a clear idea of what they want different politically. What you speak of sounds more like it comes from academics and students, rather than say, a street cleaner, who's probably too busy trying to get by to think about politics.

Anyway, Chinese haven't lost their "communal identity" (Free HK counterprotesters are proof of that), nor were they not ever status chasers who didn't give a fig about "class identity" when it came to personal profit. The generation that rose with the Revolution are some of the most selfish, inconsiderate, and hypocritical.

Mass unemployment
Hideous poverty
Rise in drug use and dealing
Rampant and obvious undemocratic shenanigans
Nation overrun with western buisnesses that take money out of the nation.

Dont get me wrong, people suffered under the USSR, but there was at least a sense of "We are all in solidarity" (more or less) now you have the mega rich spitting on the poor and going "Yes this is democracy you fools"

I do think the issue in this thread is theres no balance. These communist regimes DID do good things, albeit often outweighed by the evil but to ignore the good things is to try and paint socialism/communism as cartoonishly evil, theres also the elephant in the room of Amrrican intervention visa vi Coups or sanctions meaning they cant actually run their nation well.

Again, not white washing these regimes. Just saying the DnD chart doesnt always work.

Wait, you are talking about Russia, right? I know they have "elections" but surely no one actually buys that they're not staged. Democracy isn't even popular.

[Tofali]

Excellent news.

In a lot of ways, Mayo Pete represented the worst of American politics.

An empty soul that bucks and jives to the tunes of his billionaire donors. He stood for nothing but feeding his ambition.

[PwrdOn]

Don't play that game with me. You live in the west too, and neither of us were alive to experience the Mao years. But our parents and grandparents did - mine tell of hardships well after the GLF (and they were relatively well off, being in the military). That there was mass starvation isn't some western propaganda and "life was hardly luxurious" downplays the poverty and poor living standards of that period.

And yeah, you do get people grumbling about modern China, because nostalgia is a thing. People always complain about how terrible things are now. But how many of those people actually want to go back to being impoverished? I don't think most people are ideological enough that they think about life that way. It's more of a "life sucks rn, I wish there was change" but not having a clear idea of what they want different politically. What you speak of sounds more like it comes from academics and students, rather than say, a street cleaner, who's probably too busy trying to get by to think about politics.

Anyway, Chinese haven't lost their "communal identity" (Free HK counterprotesters are proof of that), nor were they not ever status chasers who didn't give a fig about "class identity" when it came to personal profit. The generation that rose with the Revolution are some of the most selfish, inconsiderate, and hypocritical.


Wait, you are talking about Russia, right? I know they have "elections" but surely no one actually buys that they're not staged. Democracy isn't even popular.

Nobody would want to go back to being poor obviously, but there is definitely a feeling that, now that the country has amassed a lot more wealth and is relatively free of foreign influence, a return to Marxist policies wouldn't lead to mass starvation and would indeed produce a more egalitarian society with more robust safety nets. Not quite Denmark or Sweden maybe, but something better than what they have now. This is also the supposed goal of the ruling party as well, the whole plan was that the market reforms would always be a temporary means to amass more capital, but that this would eventually herald a return to true socialism, presumably with better results now that there are more resources to go around. Fat chance of that ever happening of course, it's far more likely that the left wing in China will only re-emerge after the current economic model collapses under the weight of its own contradictions and all the money that was meant to be redistributed is already gone. And in that case, going back to doctrinaire Marxism would probably lead to mass starvation once again.

As for Russia, they have some mostly legit elections in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the USSR, but the country was just in such poor shape for most of the 90s that the entire Yeltsin era and the fling with democracy is largely looked at as a lost decade that nobody really wants to think about anymore. Part of the reason Putin is actually a lot more popular than you might think at home is because the people wanted someone to rein in the power of the oligarchs, and Putin has certainly managed that.

[aja_christopher]

Unless Chuck D. and Professor Griff had the foresight to put the cover story in place years ago, that really ain't the case.

As always, you'll make almost any argument to try to defend Sanders.

Griff was never featured in any popular songs for Public Enemy -- Flav did Cold Lampin, 911 is a Joke, and was backup vocals on a lot of PE tracks.



So it is "really the case".