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

[hyped78]

The Lincoln Project 'coverage' of CPAC Day 3 haha:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nwnP5orlL8

[hyped78]

I'm not even going to entertain that, because it seems disconnected from the actual polls of actual races, and is laser-focused on the generic-candidate ballot. It doesn't seem to look at how terrible the actual GOP candidates that are running for House again are.

Got it. I hope you're right!

McConnell doesn't sound too optimistic about the Senate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DaVV221-yw

[CSTowle]

"On the borders and land theft... When you take land your borders expand" - and, again, for the third time, I am asking you to clearly and specifically please explain what borders were expanded? If you don't know, you can just say "I don't know but land was stolen". I am specifically asking what you mean about borders being expanded, specifically, so we can discuss that point.

"Are you still denying the land theft?" - how can I even agree/ disagree with something you haven't defined/ explained at all?

"pointing out that they're doing better than Saudi Arabia or have more resources and thus a higher standard of living in general doesn't make them a democracy" - I didn't only say that (and I would never say that Israel has more resources than Saudi Arabia... huh? where does that come from?). I sent you WW Democracy Index that ranks Israel as a better democracy than any Arab country (and there are many others like this, all pointing to the same; I can provide more if you want) - https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking
I've also provided HDI data that shows the same. You've provided zero in your criticism of Israel as a democracy. Zero.
So universities and organizations consider Israel a democracy, and a 'better' one vs. many western countries, a 'better' one vs. all arab nations and you don't? That's fine, that's your opinion - but you need to create some substance and facts as to why you have that opinion.

"second-class status of non-Jewish/Hebrew citizens" - again, you'll need to prove that, beyond e.g. what happens in the US with black people. I've already explained that by law they have the same rights as Jewish Israelis, and at least I don't see you disputing that point? Do you consider the US an ethno-technocracy? If you do, then I understand your point, but then there are no "democracies" if you go to that extreme.

"On being naive or uninformed, I'm not surprised that you're resorting to insults to dismiss" - no, because see, on your first post you said that all I was doing was "whataboutism" (you can go back and read), on your second post you said all I'm doing is a "strawman" (you can go back and read). So yes, I am calling you out on apparently knowing zero, or close to zero on this topic when you've provided zero facts, zero data, zero arguments. You have a very strong opinion that you seem completely unable to back up or even articulate, so what am I supposed to conclude?
I'm not calling you an anti-semite, where have I done that, can you show me that quote?

"Again, not my first rodeo on this discussion" - but yet you seem that have zero knowledge on it. Want to discuss the "expansion of borders", then be specific and say "I am referring to borders X and Y, which were expanded etc. etc.". But you're essentially saying zero. I've given you a mix of facts, data and arguments/ opinion (and the latter is obviously subjective, everyone can disagree with it), you haven't done the same. It's like saying "I am anti abortion" and not knowing about abortion laws and not explaining why.

"Had I criticized Saudi Arabia, or Russia, or even France or the US" - what does that matter for the discussion about Israel? I don't care about that, who's on the whataboutism train now?

If you will continue to not present any facts or arguments on this topic, instead of just saying some hollow soundbytes, we can end the discussion here, that's fine no worries.

On theft of land and expansion of their territory (which, shocker, moves their borders), if you're pretending it doesn't exist/happen and have somehow missed continued international condemnation for a well-known phenomenon even though you apparently care about and follow the news and for some reason don't want to google it or accept my word for it (and fair enough on the word thing, just a random poster like yourself) here's one link from Amnesty International that breaks it down as simply as can be done: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ca...dispossession/

Did they pull a Russia and grab a chunk of land the size of Crimea? No, but then again there wasn't that much land available. A small amount of land theft is still land theft, and still worthy of the international condemnation it receives.

On democracy, you've already admitted that while on paper they have many of the same rights as other citizens there's still a limit built in because in order to be a real democracy they'd have to threaten their status as an ethno-theocracy/"Jewish homeland". By definition that means they are not. They may have a high standard of living, but so did the fascist states of Europe in the 30s and 40s. They even had elections. Didn't make them democracies.

As to the US not being an ethno-theocracy, there's a good number of people working on it. They're the folk you're denying have fascist tendencies when posters like Babyblob point out their openly spoken-of plans to get their people in the rooms where decisions are made, and take those decisions away from the average voter here.

On my having zero knowledge, I'm not the one who is either ignorant of or pretending to be ignorant of illegal Israeli land theft. That's a pretty big part of the criticism of Israel in the international community. By no means the only part, but a pretty big one and a very glaring omission from one's supposed knowledge of the subject.

As to whataboutism and talking of criticism of Russia, either you again aren't understanding my point or are intentionally pretending not to. I'm not saying "but what about Russia/China/Saud Arabia" etc. Whataboutism excuses the behavior of one subject by pointing out an equally or nearly equal set of actions by another (usually a peer/rival).

For example, your talk of what Palestinians and the Arab world has done when someone brings up the wrongs Israel has committed. That is what I said, and that is a textbook case of "whataboutism". It's not an insult (though being called out might be embarrassing and cause offense), what you said was literally the equivalent of "who cares what Israel's doing, have you seen what the Arab World has done to them? Why talk about them?"

As to strawmen, again you gave a clear and undeniable (though by all means, go ahead and requote your original quotes and my responding quote and break down how I'm wrong exactly) textbook example of a strawman in which you take my argument (we should be able to criticize all countries when they do wrong, and that includes allies like Israel/France/Canada and even ourselves as well as the Russias/Chinas/North Koreas of the world without reflexive pushback or shutdown of the discussion by insulting or accusations of being racist/prejudiced/antisemitic) and substituted "Arabs are always the good guys, and all of the killing is done by Israel (who are always the bad guys)".

When you misrepresent my arguments and do so using well-known/well-worn internet debating tactics you should expect to be called out on them, as you were when you defended yourself from charges of racism by saying "some of my best friends are..." Again, not an insult if it's what you're choosing to do. It's an observation.

As to linking criticism of Israel to antisemitism, we went a few rounds after I pointed out that criticism of Israel is common and you insisting that it's mostly a thinly veiled form of antisemitism and stems from a centuries-long hatred of the Jewish people. I said (and continue to say) that while such prejudice exists there are also very legitimate reasons to criticize Israel and its military that are not only widely known and condemned but are also strongly condemned by many Israelis and Jews around the world. It's a discussion that needs to be had, and shouldn't be shied away from because someone might label you as an antisemite because they want to label you as a pariah to avoid engaging in your argument. And again, not seeing that with criticism of any other country, including the US.

[kidfresh512]

Texas Republicans are trying to sell school choice measures, but rural conservatives aren’t buying

As a Texas school superintendent, Adrain Johnson is no stranger to the struggles small, rural public schools face, from trying to recruit teachers, especially after more than two years of navigating school during a global pandemic, to a general lack of resources. And now, after the school shooting in Uvalde, there’s a renewed conversation about campus security.

With so many problems to solve, Johnson, who oversees the Hearne Independent School District northwest of College Station, doesn’t understand why state lawmakers’ to-do lists heading into next year’s legislative session seem to focus more on school choice over something like school safety.

“There always seems to be a school choice debate every legislative year, and I’m not afraid of that. I think that debating is good. That’s part of democracy,” Johnson said.

But he also wonders why public schools always take a back seat to the pursuit of policies that could diminish them.

This is an interesting weakness and split in the GOP in terms of policy. On one hand they love to try and use this issue to weaken public schools by diverting public funds to charter schools etc. But, as the article points out rural schools with conservative voters see the negatives in this just like inner city districts that rely on robust funding for public schools. They don't have the same "choices" there are no close "charter schools" in a lot of these rural districts. So money diverted is money taken right from their kids education.

Its interesting this is one issue that these rural GOP districts actually agree with Democrats on, and the only reason these measures keep getting defeated is the GOP opposition in an otherwise red state. Yet it is still listed as a GOP legislative priority over and over.

This another of the compounded reasons of the nation wide teacher shortage as well. This constant underfunding of teachers and public schools. On top of the other GOP attacks on curriculum, and ignoring school safety as pointed out in this article.

[hyped78]

On theft of land and expansion of their territory (which, shocker, moves their borders), if you're pretending it doesn't exist/happen and have somehow missed continued international condemnation for a well-known phenomenon even though you apparently care about and follow the news and for some reason don't want to google it or accept my word for it (and fair enough on the word thing, just a random poster like yourself) here's one link from Amnesty International that breaks it down as simply as can be done: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ca...dispossession/

Did they pull a Russia and grab a chunk of land the size of Crimea? No, but then again there wasn't that much land available. A small amount of land theft is still land theft, and still worthy of the international condemnation it receives.

On democracy, you've already admitted that while on paper they have many of the same rights as other citizens there's still a limit built in because in order to be a real democracy they'd have to threaten their status as an ethno-theocracy/"Jewish homeland". By definition that means they are not. They may have a high standard of living, but so did the fascist states of Europe in the 30s and 40s. They even had elections. Didn't make them democracies.

As to the US not being an ethno-theocracy, there's a good number of people working on it. They're the folk you're denying have fascist tendencies when posters like Babyblob point out their openly spoken-of plans to get their people in the rooms where decisions are made, and take those decisions away from the average voter here.

On my having zero knowledge, I'm not the one who is either ignorant of or pretending to be ignorant of illegal Israeli land theft. That's a pretty big part of the criticism of Israel in the international community. By no means the only part, but a pretty big one and a very glaring omission from one's supposed knowledge of the subject.

As to whataboutism and talking of criticism of Russia, either you again aren't understanding my point or are intentionally pretending not to. I'm not saying "but what about Russia/China/Saud Arabia" etc. Whataboutism excuses the behavior of one subject by pointing out an equally or nearly equal set of actions by another (usually a peer/rival).

For example, your talk of what Palestinians and the Arab world has done when someone brings up the wrongs Israel has committed. That is what I said, and that is a textbook case of "whataboutism". It's not an insult (though being called out might be embarrassing and cause offense), what you said was literally the equivalent of "who cares what Israel's doing, have you seen what the Arab World has done to them? Why talk about them?"

As to strawmen, again you gave a clear and undeniable (though by all means, go ahead and requote your original quotes and my responding quote and break down how I'm wrong exactly) textbook example of a strawman in which you take my argument (we should be able to criticize all countries when they do wrong, and that includes allies like Israel/France/Canada and even ourselves as well as the Russias/Chinas/North Koreas of the world without reflexive pushback or shutdown of the discussion by insulting or accusations of being racist/prejudiced/antisemitic) and substituted "Arabs are always the good guys, and all of the killing is done by Israel (who are always the bad guys)".

When you misrepresent my arguments and do so using well-known/well-worn internet debating tactics you should expect to be called out on them, as you were when you defended yourself from charges of racism by saying "some of my best friends are..." Again, not an insult if it's what you're choosing to do. It's an observation.

As to linking criticism of Israel to antisemitism, we went a few rounds after I pointed out that criticism of Israel is common and you insisting that it's mostly a thinly veiled form of antisemitism and stems from a centuries-long hatred of the Jewish people. I said (and continue to say) that while such prejudice exists there are also very legitimate reasons to criticize Israel and its military that are not only widely known and condemned but are also strongly condemned by many Israelis and Jews around the world. It's a discussion that needs to be had, and shouldn't be shied away from because someone might label you as an antisemite because they want to label you as a pariah to avoid engaging in your argument. And again, not seeing that with criticism of any other country, including the US.

Finally you post a link with something (!!!), after multiple requests from my side! Reading that article from Amnesty International (an incredibly dubious source!!! the article even quotes various Palestinians, what are they supposed to say?), I want to ask if your position - as per the article - is that there was (and these are your words) "land theft"/ "expansion of territory"/ "moving borders" as a result of the 1967 conflict? Is that your point? I would like for you to state "my opinion is that there's been land theft in place X and Y as a result of Z". Because if that's your point, then I suggest you understand what happened in the 1967 conflict. Let me quote Lyndon Johnson: "If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other, it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision [by Egypt] that the Straits of Tiran would be closed [to Israeli ships]. The right of innocent, maritime passage must be preserved for all nations."

"small amount of land theft is still land theft" - what land? Is it Gaza? Parts of Gaza? The West Strip? Parts of the West Strip? Jerusalem? The Golan Heights? Can you please define what you mean?

"On democracy, you've already admitted that while on paper they have many of the same rights as other citizens there's still a limit built in because in order to be a real democracy they'd have to threaten their status as an ethno-theocracy/"Jewish homeland". By definition that means they are not." - no, you completely misunderstood. Let me explain again: A) Arab Israelis, living in Israel, have the same legal rights as other Israel citizens - as per law, B) Arab Palestinians living in Palestine are not Israel citizens - but you seem oblivious to the fact that they don't want to be Israeli citizens!!! Or do you think Palestinians want to be citizens of Israel? They want their own state! (even though it was the Arabs who rejected the two-state solution in 1948 and attacked Israel, who had accepted it, in case you're unaware) You seem to be very very confused on this point.
Also in case you're unaware, most Palestinians still reject a two-state solution (there are many polls like this, if you're interested): http://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/866
So Palestinians don't want a two-state solution, Israel and Palestine, and they don't want to be citizens of Israel. Then what do they want? I'll let you answer that yourself.

"when you defended yourself from charges of racism" - what does that have to do with this? nothing

"When you misrepresent my arguments" - but what arguments?!

"criticism of Israel is common and you insisting that it's mostly a thinly veiled form of antisemitism" - I didn't say 'mostly'. I said that anti zionism and anti semitism often go hand in hand, and that's a fact. Zionism is the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and to have their own homeland.

I've never said that Israel is perfect and doesn't have blood on their hands. They obviously aren't perfect and have blood on their hands but whenever the discussion starts on "land theft" and "expanding borders" usually folks don't know what they are talking about, they have just a very general idea "Israel bad! Israel bad!". So I'm asking - are you referring to the 1967 war as a land grab? Or before that? Or after? And exactly what borders are you referring to? It seems like you have a general opinion but then there's no substance behind it, no details, nothing.

"They may have a high standard of living, but so did the fascist states of Europe in the 30s and 40s. They even had elections. Didn't make them democracies" - I've already replied to this more than once and sent you a WW democracy index. I offered to send you more. Why do all reputable universities, organizations and think thanks consider that Israel is a democracy? While, at the same time, considering Hamas and the Islamic Jihad as terrorist organizations? (they are considered terrorist organizations by most western countries)

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, btw, apologies if it comes across that way

[Mister Mets]

There are issues like gay marriage or gay adoption or the ongoing discussion of trans rights that, while you and I may think should be left to the individual, nonetheless are voted on by representatives who are voted on by all of us collectively.

I'm not saying it's ideal, just that it is. I often hear (from both sides of the aisle) that rights are universal, inherent, etc. but the truth is they're not. We have to decide on them as a society (usually by voting for representatives, who then vote and vote on those who will decide their fitness in the courts), and while luckily we live in a country that in the grand scheme of things values individual and human rights more than the average we're not perfect for many (either not as tolerant or too permissive, depending on your perspective) and has been shown just this year rights can be stripped away.

There's no guarantee we're going to go in the direction in the future that you or I may want either. Unless you're a religious person there's no indisputable set of rules or laws or rights that we're entitled to. If we want them we have to work towards them by doing things like voting, and convincing others that either don't care or don't agree that we're better off as a society if we have those things.

A large portion of the population just wants to be left alone and not told what to do (whether it's the right thing to do or not), and another portion has an idea that the moral teachings of a desert tribe written thousands of years ago when far less was known about the universe and keeping the tribe in line and pumping out young farmers and soldiers was top priority was the pinnacle of morality (except where it's inconvenient, then probably ignored). We're going to have to work around both things if we want to have a society with more rights. They are certainly not guaranteed, and won't be left to the individual to decide (whatever we might wish).

That's a good point and it gets to an underappreciated part of policy.

Some conservatives will make claims about natural law to justify policy preferences, so any authority given to progressive judges and bureaucrats to declare that rights are not left up to the voters can be used by these guys when they get appointed.

Political debate is also much more difficult when there are two quite irreconcilable views (conservatives who think natural law trumps written law vs progressives who think their policy preferences are so obviously right that we don't need a legislature or executive to pass it), in addition to views on the others who hold a view somewhere in the middle.

yes. That is more of how the GOP is so much better at controlling the spin

If this was on the other foot they would be going nuts about the Dems not wanting to help the American people.

This bill should be a big boost for the Democrats. But we have talking heads going for click bait and ratings because thr Dems bombing is a bigger headline.

Democrats would not be doing better if the mainstream media was the equivalent of Pravda, reporting only the spin the party wants. Their credibility would vanish.

In terms of messaging, the main problem for Democrats seems to be that the American media seems to be that it's staffed by people far to the left of the average Democratic party primary voter, to say nothing of the median swing voter.

Democrats helping/ funding GOP MAGA candidates in the primaries - smart or risky?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzg6PcBlR3U

This seems to have gotten more coverage recently.

It gets difficult for Democrats to argue that something like the election of Doug Mastriano as Governor of Pennsylvania is an existential threat if they help him win his primary. If Democrats view mediocre Republican candidates as an opportunity rather than a crisis, it suggests to voters that the promise isn't that big a deal.

It's also sketchy when these tactics are used against Republicans who voted to impeach Trump. It suggests that any comments about putting country before party were bullshit platitudes.

On the "Generic Congressional Vote" polls, is there a +% or range of +%s you consider to be good/ bad for both sides, to control the Senate? E.g. "If Dems are up +2.0% on Generic Congressional Voting I think that means they will take the Senate".

I know this isn't that easy because obviously it will come down to a few swing states, but curious to see if there are %s/ range of %s where you feel happy/ confident for the Dems vs. not?

Candidate quality matters more with Senate elections.

A generic Republican may defeat a generic Democrat, but Herschel Walker, Blake Masters, Mehmet Oz and Ted Budd are going to underperform.

[kidfresh512]

I Love My Students, but I Won’t Use a Gun to Protect Them

OXFORD, Miss. — Before classes start Aug. 22 at the university where I teach English, I’ll locate my new classroom, slip inside and conduct a ritual inspection. It has a practical purpose: ensuring that the chalk board has chalk, the AV has cords, and the desks and chairs are in neat rows.

I have a psychological purpose, too. Convincing college students of the transformative power of literature is hard work. I’m pumping myself up, picturing the room humming with discussion, booming with laughter.

And, in recent years, there’s a tactical purpose. I determine whether the door has a glass plate, and if so, how I’ll cover it. Does the door lock? From the inside? Do the windows open? Wide enough to shoulder through? How far is the drop? I survey the desks, imagine barricading the door, then huddling my students into the “hard corner,” a term I should not need to know. It’s the corner on the same wall as the door, but farthest from the door. The corner where I’ll drape my body over as many of their 20 bodies as I can, like a sea anemone draping an iceberg.

I’m mentally preparing to protect my students from an active shooter. This fact splits my sternum with an ice pick of despair. But please don’t offer me a gun.

The first line of defense? If we educators find ourselves nose-to-nose with a mentally ill child wielding an AR-15, it might look as if we’re the first line, but that’s only because all the other lines have lain down. Those making and interpreting the laws have lain down. (Someone explain to my first-year college students why they can buy a shotgun but not a shot of booze, because I sure can’t.) And those who are supposed to be upholding the laws have lain down. Guns are being sold illegally. And guns are being sold legally to buyers with backgrounds of violence or hate crime misdemeanors. Guns are being sold without background checks, a problem that worsened during the pandemic.

Really well written essay giving an educator's perspective on these proposals to arm teachers and use them as 'first line of defense'.

[hyped78]

I Love My Students, but I Won’t Use a Gun to Protect Them

Really well written essay giving an educator's perspective on these proposals to arm teachers and use them as 'first line of defense'.

They're not a "first line of defense", they're (unfortunately) dead meat

[babyblob]

I Love My Students, but I Won’t Use a Gun to Protect Them







Really well written essay giving an educator's perspective on these proposals to arm teachers and use them as 'first line of defense'.

The big GOP talking point is arming teachers. And they cant shut up about how bad the teachers want this.

Even though tons of teachers and teachers unions are speaking out against it.

In Ohio we had the law maker that wanted to make it required for a teacher to have a Permit to carry a gun and receive gun training or their teaching license would be revoked. The teachers unions of course spoke out against this but he would not stop talking about it and how bad teachers wanted it. Even though the teachers promised mass walk outs and resigns if he kept going.

Lucky it never went any where.

its been pointed out by several members of this board. They dont trust teachers to teach history and not groom our children. But they want them armed to the teeth.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Well, this is a solid first excerpt...

There's a forthcoming book called "The Divider", about Trump's time in the White House with a never-before heard anecdote...

Trump whined to his former Chief of Staff John Kelly, a former general, about Gen. Mark Milley that "the generals aren't loyal enough to me", and Trump's example for how the Pentagon's top brass should act?

LIKE THE GERMAN GENERALS TREATED HITLER!

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/08/u...officials.html
Kelly then reminded him there were a bunch of German generals who tried to assassinate Hitler on three different occasions, but Trump still insisted that they loved the head of the Third Reich.



Like... this is still Republicans' guy.

Didn’t Ivana once float an anecdote that when she was married to Trump, he kept a copy of Mein Kampf on his nightstand?

[Tami]

Well, this is a solid first excerpt...

There's a forthcoming book called "The Divider", about Trump's time in the White House with a never-before heard anecdote...

Trump whined to his former Chief of Staff John Kelly, a former general, about Gen. Mark Milley that "the generals aren't loyal enough to me", and Trump's example for how the Pentagon's top brass should act?

LIKE THE GERMAN GENERALS TREATED HITLER!

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/08/u...officials.html
Kelly then reminded him there were a bunch of German generals who tried to assassinate Hitler on three different occasions, but Trump still insisted that they loved the head of the Third Reich.



Like... this is still Republicans' guy.

When I was a young school girl, history class included the bit about Hitler and how he met his end. Trump apparently never paid attention in school.

[worstblogever]

Didn’t Ivana once float an anecdote that when she was married to Trump, he kept a copy of Mein Kampf on his nightstand?

[CaptainEurope]

Didn’t Ivana once float an anecdote that when she was married to Trump, he kept a copy of Mein Kampf on his nightstand?

Almost. It was a book collecting Hitler's speeches.

https://www.***************.com/dona...his-bed-2015-8

[Catlady in training]

When I was a young school girl, history class included the bit about Hitler and how he met his end. Trump apparently never paid attention in school.

He's a huge fan of the current incarnation for sure.

[worstblogever]

When I was a young school girl, history class included the bit about Hitler and how he met his end. Trump apparently never paid attention in school.

There's literally a film (not a great one) about one of the assassination attempts by his generals.