All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[CSTowle]

This isn't about Bernie himself, it's about his supporters and they don't need him to run for office to be a problem.



If you know there are bad actors why aren't you don't your part in taking their tools away? Instead its normalising what they did because Bernie was "popular." This isn't about his popularity, it's about the bad actors and not giving oxygen to that fire.



I didn't say he didn't, and they never went as far as the Bernie Bros did. A name which didn't stick.



Sure, so how about we not give that validity? I said he was more popular than Bernie, and he did beat Trump by a lot. It was a blowout, Biden switched conservative strongholds like Georgia and Arizona.



She got more votes than Bernie or Trump. She may not be Obama in popularity but she is popular. Stop encouraging the narrative that Trump is easy to defeat and that its somehow makes her look weak because she's lost to him. Those are GOP talking points.



Excuses.



The problem is that bernie felt entitled to those relationships tithe then building them himself. Nothing stopped him from trying to form an alliance with Clyburn and other influential people in the party, it's not like '16 was his first run for office. That's on Bernie.




I just told you one reason why, memes and a cult of personality. They like the idea of Trump more than Trump himself. The memes reinforce this. You'd be mistaken.

This apologia for Bernie Bros is bewildering.

On the extremists among Bernie's supporters: as has been pointed out by myself and now numberthirty Bernie is never going to be President. So whatever feelings they had or behavior they engaged in (or whatever behavior their opponents engaged in), or whatever grudges you might be holding onto from the '16 or '20 Primaries it's not worth holding onto. Extremists are going to be extremists, and they're going to remain on the fringe. Memes are not going to change that.

On "taking away their tools", I don't feel like its mine or anyone's place to censor free speech unless and until it rises to inciting violence or other common sense restrictions we've all pretty much come to agree upon. I understand why private social media companies tend to be more heavy-handed in these situations (looking to avoid lawsuits and accountability), but they're not going to do that for a Bernie meme where he's doing whatever while sitting in mittens. Nor should they, whatever "slippery slope" you might believe it leads to. I also don't believe I (or anyone else reading this) could determine what lies in the heart of those creating all of these memes, so who exactly do you suggest we target for meme-banning? Anyone who voted for a non-centrist candidate?

On the name not sticking, again Obama won and history is written by winners. Like Kamala Harris "believing Tara Reade's account" when it was politically convenient then jumping on board for the number two spot, Hillary tried to slime Obama's followers but then campaigned hard for him when it was clear it was over for her. Had Bernie somehow pulled off an upset she would have done the same for him. Doesn't mean there weren't bad actors in the Obama campaign (or Clinton campaign, or fill-in-the-blank campaigns). It's politics. People have strong feelings and play hard. If anything a valid criticism of Bernie and his campaign was they didn't play hard enough.

On the election being a blowout and Biden flipping red states, I'd again argue it was less about excitement for Biden (I like the guy, but let's be honest) and more about excitement at the prospect of voting Trump out of office. Saying Biden's bland and middle-of-the-road and not very exciting is only a knock if you buy into popularity being an important part of being a competent President. As stated before, I don't think it is (beyond getting people to let you do the job). I can't prove that I'm correct that it was more about Trump than Biden, and I'm sure people much more intelligent and knowledgeable about these matters are going to have differing opinions. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

On the narrative that Trump was easy to defeat, my answer is he should have been in '16. He had no qualifications, he turned off Evangelicals and fiscal conservatives who literally had no idea how or if he'd govern. Most held their noses and hoped he'd give them a tax cut and maybe a Supreme Court Justice or two. It was a gamble that paid off for them. I believe if Biden had run in '16 he would have handily defeated him. Again, not because of popularity but because he wasn't weighed down by tons of baggage like Clinton and Trump were and because he's competent and (when at 100%) likeable enough.

On Bernie and "excuses", I'd say just my explanation by way of speculation. Again, agree to disagree. Every politician has weaknesses. Bernie had a few. 1. Probably shouldn't have been in the main event. 2. Was hyper focused on economic issues for the poor and middle class, and had tunnel vision. 3. Wasn't really a political player, and never really got the hang of "the Game". I'd like to point out you appear to have very strong feelings about the man and seem to feel he has no virtues, and take an almost personal offense when someone points out even obvious and widely accepted flaws in other (usually more centrist) candidates. I'd also like to point out that you seem worried about feelings winning out over facts in politics. This seems like a bit of a contradiction to me. So to help, I'd again like to point out these facts:

1. Bernie Sanders will never be President.
2. "Bernie Bros" will never again be relevant, and arguably never were.
3. A centrist candidate won and is now President of the United States.
4. You're never going to get rid of political memes, or people projecting their hopes onto potential "political saviors" It's a reality. The best you can do is try to accept that and maybe try to rationally discuss issues with them. But accept that's probably going to change their mind about as much as a meme.

When you paint a large group of people as equivalent to the worst among their number you are far more likely to have them either A. ignore you or B. actively work against you. You will never, ever, I guarantee you get them to stop and say, "Gee y'now, you're right. Those people on the fringe really do give me pause, maybe I should change my political affiliation and opinions to more closely resemble yours in your clearly superior wisdom."

It probably feels good emotionally to paint anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant or "evil" in some way. Nobody's the villain of their own story, and if you can keep your own internal narrative simple by dismissing anyone with a differing opinion as a commie/nazi/racist/radical/etc. it's probably easy to keep. But I'd guess that's also how you get people who still believe Biden wasn't lawfully elected and that any day now the military is going to pull up to the White House with vans and start loading Democrats into Gitmo. Not having to think or challenge your beliefs is far more dangerous than posting a meme about Bernie Sanders or anyone else. At least in my opinion.

[Kirby101]

Whether or not Tom Cotton deserves to be able to call himself an Army Ranger...

We can say he deserves to be labeled as a fascist, given the op-eds he's written. And that really should have been enough to end his career.

THIS^^^

His service isn't the issue. His fascistic, ideologically corrupt politics should be.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Federal Law Enforcement Might Let Some Capitol Attackers Get Away Without Charges for Insurrection

https://www.theroot.com/federal-law-...ker-1846121287

The idea that some of the filthy rat bastards who stormed the Capitol could be released makes my blood boil! These scum wanted to disrupt the validation of Joe Biden as the new president, talked of wanting to take hostages, even set up a fucking gallows outside the building for crissakes! And now, some of them could walk? Are you kidding me? This is flat out reprehensible!

[Tami]

Supreme Court dismisses challenges to Trump's business profits

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday tossed out two lawsuits claiming that Donald Trump's business dealings as president violated the Constitution's ban on receiving financial benefits from states or foreign officials.

The cases raised a novel question about a president's ability to receive income from businesses patronized by government officials. But once Trump left office, it was assumed the cases would be dismissed as moot because the constitutional provision would no longer apply to him — leaving unanswered the legal questions they raised.

The issue arose shortly after Trump took office. The attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia challenged his receipt of profits from the Trump International Hotel in Washington, a few blocks from the White House. And a nonprofit group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, raised similar concerns about the Trump International Hotel in New York.

Though Trump's lawyers fought the lawsuits aggressively, lower courts declined to throw the cases out, so the president took his appeals to the Supreme Court. Both lawsuits involved the Constitution's emoluments clauses, which forbid the president from receiving "any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince, or foreign state" or any state in the U.S.

[Tendrin]

Whether or not Tom Cotton deserves to be able to call himself an Army Ranger...

We can say he deserves to be labeled as a fascist, given the op-eds he's written. And that really should have been enough to end his career.

Absolutely.

[Tendrin]

Hey, WBE. Is Greg Steube in the queue? If not, he should be.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/01/...-school-girls/

A Congressional Republican has introduced a federal bill that would ban transgender girls and women from participating in school sports.

Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) introduced H.R. 426 yesterday, which would threaten federal funds to state and local athletics organizations if they allow “a person whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls.”

And he is, of course, an apologist for Trump's deadly incitement, citing a ruling about, of all things, *THE KKK*, sayng that incitement to violence is protected speech.

Republican Rep. Greg Steube cited a case involving a KKK leader in his impeachment defense of President Donald Trump, contending Trump said nothing that qualifies as inciting violence under law established by that case.

Speaking Wednesday during debate for a second Trump impeachment, Steube insisted the President never said anything to incite or provoke people to violence, and so was not legally responsible when a mob left his speech, went to the U.S. Capitol, seized and sacked it, and killed a police officer.

“The legal elements of incitement are based on the Supreme Court case of Brandenburg v. Ohio,” Steube said, referring to the 1969 case involving an Ohio Ku Klux Klan leader charged with inciting violence. “Brandenburg called for violence against Americans. And the Supreme Court said … that was protected speech. And he was calling for violence! That’s the current law of the land.”

https://floridapolitics.com/archives...g-donald-trump

[Tami]

Breaking: Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio will not run for re-election when his current term ends in 2022.

Might be worth it for the Ohio Democrats to make a run for his seat in 2022. Ohio already has 1 Democratic Senator, maybe they can make it two?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Breaking: Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio will not run for re-election when his current term ends in 2022.

Might be worth it for the Ohio Democrats to make a run for his seat in 2022. Ohio already has 1 Democratic Senator, maybe they can make it two?

Ohio went for Trump big time in 2020. On the other hand it went for Trump on the same margin in 2016 but Sherrod Brown got elected for a full term in 2018 when Trump wasn't on the ballot.

[worstblogever]

Hey, WBE. Is Greg Steube in the queue? If not, he should be.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/01/...-school-girls/



And he is, of course, an apologist for Trump's deadly incitement, citing a ruling about, of all things, *THE KKK*, sayng that incitement to violence is protected speech.

https://floridapolitics.com/archives...g-donald-trump

He's in the queue, although both those stories are getting added to the pile of reasons why he's worth sandbagging.

Like, I've been putting him off for way too long, but even in 2017, the Miami New Times thought he had already submitted ten insane bills in his first two months in office.

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/o...e-laws-9182125

[worstblogever]

Breaking: Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio will not run for re-election when his current term ends in 2022.

Might be worth it for the Ohio Democrats to make a run for his seat in 2022. Ohio already has 1 Democratic Senator, maybe they can make it two?

So he has nothing to lose if he votes to impeach. Also, if things play out right for him, he might have a shot at running for Governor of Ohio in 2022, or president in 2024.

[Username taken]

I have been a harsher critic of Bernie's die-hard supporters than of Bernie himself. But I have had criticism for Senator Sanders.

And this meme? It's a nice fun thing that exists without commentary, and seems to just be celebrating that he's kind of curmudgeonly. Like Larry David really is the perfect guy to be doing an impression of him. So it's just a nice thing.

Let's just enjoy a nice thing while it lasts and not read too much into it.

Also, let's enjoy it if now that he's the Senate Budget Committee Chairman, that he shuts down Republicans who want to suddenly whine about the annual budget deficit that they multiplied by 8 under Trump.

Exactly.

It's just a funny thing about the way Bernie presented himself.

It's not really anything much more than that.

[Tami]

So he has nothing to lose if he votes to impeach. Also, if things play out right for him, he might have a shot at running for Governor of Ohio in 2022, or president in 2024.

Last I heard, there are fewer and fewer Republican Senators willing to vote against Trump, for one reason or another.

[CaptainEurope]

The whole thing sort of hinges on the assumption that the general public know the guy by name and give a rip, no?

In a country where there is still a pandemic in third gear and folks out of work?

I'm not so sure that I would put a name brand box of jellybeans on that actually being the case.

Wasn't he a likely candidate to run for president in 2024?

Then again, him winning the primaries would have made his party the "Cotton picking GOP".


...


I'll go get my coat.

[MajorHoy]

Last I heard, there are fewer and fewer Republican Senators willing to vote against Trump, for one reason or another.

I wonder how many feel Trump really didn't do anything wrong and how many are more afraid of a potential backlash from the rabid Trump-supporters in their states?

[DrNewGod]

I wonder how many feel Trump really didn't do anything wrong and how many are more afraid of a potential backlash from the rabid Trump-supporters in their states?

I think the latter is probably the greater number of those unwilling to convict.