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

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Starmer losing because of Iraq is like saying Corbyn lost because of Brexit. It's not the why. Not even close.

The biggest problem for Labour as a party is that they are a completely schismatic party without internal consensus. That schism heightened with Brexit where a lot of Labour constituencies were Pro-Brexit and Leavers while the party HQ in London were Remainers, including the one Labour lost in Hartlepool (a constitutency they voted Leave but Starmer decided to field a Remainer candidate). If you want to trace that schism back to a source, the Iraq War is obviously the start of the party's troubles.

I just don't see it. People don't vote like this. They don't associate one leader with the votes of a leader 15 years ago, UNLESS that person is the direct protege of... and even then, it's a stretch to think that is THE turning of the tide when it comes to election wins and loses.

If you want a narrative for the party in terms of "Why nobody after Blair?" then I think you need to look at the most defining aspect of Blair's legacy, and that obviously is his hand-in-glove support of Dubya Bush which led to this extensive public report which more or less confirmed that Blair had no grounds or national-security reason for taking UK into that war.

I think, in the discussion about 'how can Labour win an election' looking to THE ONLY Labour leader to win an election in 50 years and ask "what did he do that others haven't?"... is fair game, no?

Nope.

Because it assumes that
a) Blair's victory and his campaign can be replicated.
b) His victory was entirely down to him and not to the Conservatives failure to field proper candidates.
c) That the same manifesto and platform that campaigned in the '90s can be replicated again.
d) Blair's campaign wasn't a result of a certain technological and cultural moment which has come and gone and been subsumed across all parties.
e) That electioneering can be divorced from legacy of governance, because it can't.

The fact is that the Tories learned from Tony Blair and his slick PR-heavy politicking and under Boris Johnson they have someone who's Tony Blair but without any delusions of conscience, why have the Draco Malfoy who pretends he's Harry Potter when you can have Draco Malfoy himself. There's no way that Labour can go back to Blair and compete against the guy who was his biggest student.

The Democrat party these days isn't any more the "party of Bill Clinton" (in the 2020 DNC Bill had about the same screentime and runtime as Jimmy Carter did and these days, Carter has the better reputation than Bill, lol). The Labour party should not be the party of Tony Blair certainly, and it doesn't need to be. I will admit that the Dems having Obama in power after Bill has allowed them to neuter the corrosive effect of his legacy (it's the reason why Obama's VP got elected Prez while Bill's VP and his wife failed both times).

[Kieran_Frost]

The biggest problem for Labour as a party is that they are a completely schismatic party without internal consensus. That schism heightened with Brexit where a lot of Labour constituencies were Pro-Brexit and Leavers while the party HQ in London were Remainers, including the one Labour lost in Hartlepool (a constitutency they voted Leave but Starmer decided to field a Remainer candidate). If you want to trace that schism back to a source, the Iraq War is obviously the start of the party's troubles.

If you want a narrative for the party in terms of "Why nobody after Blair?" then I think you need to look at the most defining aspect of Blair's legacy, and that obviously is his hand-in-glove support of Dubya Bush which led to this extensive public report which more or less confirmed that Blair had no grounds or national-security reason for taking UK into that war.

Nope.

Because it assumes that
a) Blair's victory and his campaign can be replicated.
b) His victory was entirely down to him and not to the Conservatives failure to field proper candidates.
c) That the same manifesto and platform that campaigned in the '90s can be replicated again.
d) Blair's campaign wasn't a result of a certain technological and cultural moment which has come and gone and been subsumed across all parties.
e) That electioneering can be divorced from legacy of governance, because it can't.

The fact is that the Tories learned from Tony Blair and his slick PR-heavy politicking and under Boris Johnson they have someone who's Tony Blair but without any delusions of conscience, why have the Draco Malfoy who pretends he's Harry Potter when you can have Draco Malfoy himself. There's no way that Labour can go back to Blair and compete against the guy who was his biggest student.

I am getting the impression Blair and the Iraq War is a huge sticking point with you, but I see no evidence that your feelings on the matter are the centre of why Labour can't win modern elections to the general population. I just don't believe it's linked to events 15 years ago; that is not how people work. You're lucky if they remember the promises of the current candidates 6 months ago. The idea that 5 leaders ago is the sticking point is just rubbish. So much has changed, so much of the world has drastically changed and altered and how we vote, how we get our news, all of it has drastically evolved. I don't think you're correct. At all. On any level. Iraq and Blair has nothing to do with these election losses. They really, really don't.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I am getting the impression Blair and the Iraq War is a huge sticking point with you, but I see no evidence that your feelings on the matter are the centre of why Labour can't win modern elections to the general population.

If you presume that the "general population" has no sense of history or no deep memory then I don't really see what's the use either way about caring about "lessons of the past" or learning from it.

By your own logic, Corbyn's defeat isn't a big deal because people have short memories. Blair's victory has no lessons because people have short memories. So treat every election as if it's from scratch and entirely of the present...which on the whole isn't really a bad approach at all, I recommend taking it.

I just don't believe it's linked to events 15 years ago; that is not how people work. You're lucky if they remember the promises of the current candidates 6 months ago.

Over the past year, you have had riots in Northern Ireland, you have Scottish Independence as a major political force, and both of them are dealing with stuff that's 100 Years Old and counting, so quite obviously the idea that the general electorate doesn't know history, or doesn't care about grudges, or are essentially goldfish has a problem with this thing called reality.

My advice is to not assume that people are idiots. Even when they vote for a wrong candidate or an idea you disagree with that doesn't mean they are idiots. It might mean they are evil, or they have wrong ideas, or are emotionally insecure to be led astray by any idea that sounds good here and there, but that by itself doesn't signify any lack of intelligence.

[InformationGeek]

OOooooooh WBE! We got a new one for ya, fresh from my homestate. Real special piece of work this one. Road in with Donald Trump when he was elected.

Dr. Fauci was just on Meet the Press and @chucktodd didn’t ask him a single question about the origin of COVID-19 and whether taxpayer dollars went to gain of function research in Wuhan.

This is the most important question facing the world, yet few in the media are asking it.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

We are watching the Republican party get more and more radical in real time. Its changed every from a reliable Republican voter to one who will never vote for one for any office at any level. The unofficial new motto of "Death to Democracy!" they have taken up makes me fearful of what the next GoP president will do - I'm afraid that the next time Republicans win full power in an election will be the last free election the country has.

I fear that's no exaggeration. Practically every state with a Republican in the governor's office (i.e. Florida and Texas) has either enacted poorly disguised voter suppression bills or are in the process of doing so while states helmed by Democrats but with strong Republican legislatures (i.e. Pennsylvania) are working on similar bills. It's been said in this thread more times than can be counted: Republicans don't want to govern, they want to rule and are more than willing to flush democracy down the toilet in order to return to power, then stay there. Another concern is that the next Republican president will be every bit the irredeemable, unconscionable sociopath Trump was, but far smarter and won't make the same mistakes he did, and that's nothing short of frightening, considering all the damage Dolt45 had done while in office. Add in a right leaning, conservative Supreme Court with two questionable Justices (Kegger Kavanaugh and Amy Covid Barrett) and that concern doubles. Until someone convinces me otherwise, this country is in serious trouble, the upcoming midterms will be crucial in checking the ambitions of the GQP to destroy everything America stands for.

[Hellion]

My mistake Jack. It was Hellion who posted about the BBC sounding biased. He can tell us where he heard it.

Apologies for the delay; I've been mowing my lawn all day. I was referring to the election coverage articles on the BBC website's "Scotland" section. The tone of the writing was different depending on if they were writing about Tory or SNP success. When writing about SNP achievement they always tempered it with "but there's no way they can meet their ultimate goal", "majority denied," etc., even though the Scottish voting system was specifically designed to make it almost impossible for one party to get a majority in their parliament.

[Tami]

I fear that's no exaggeration. Practically every state with a Republican in the governor's office (i.e. Florida and Texas) has either enacted poorly disguised voter suppression bills or are in the process of doing so while states helmed by Democrats but with strong Republican legislatures (i.e. Pennsylvania) are working on similar bills. It's been said in this thread more times than can be counted: Republicans don't want to govern, they want to rule and are more than willing to flush democracy down the toilet in order to return to power, then stay there. Another concern is that the next Republican president will be every bit the irredeemable, unconscionable sociopath Trump was, but far smarter and won't make the same mistakes he did, and that's nothing short of frightening, considering all the damage Dolt45 had done while in office. Add in a right leaning, conservative Supreme Court with two questionable Justices (Kegger Kavanaugh and Amy Covid Barrett) and that concern doubles. Until someone convinces me otherwise, this country is in serious trouble, the upcoming midterms will be crucial in checking the ambitions of the GQP to destroy everything America stands for.

One problem with your reasoning. Anyone who is able to gain the support of Trumpian voters and model themselves as the next Donald Trump isn't going to be very intelligent.

Sure, it's possible that a Republican might make it into office, but they will have to have the support of all of the Republicans plus a handful of Indies and Democrats. Indies and Democrats are not going to vote for a Trump wannabe, and Trump supporters aren't going to vote for someone who is 'Smart'. Every Republican in Congress who is kissing Trump's ring isn't displaying any amount of intelligence, considering how many of them eventually get thrown under the bus by Trump for the slightest of slights.

I'm not saying it couldn't ever happen, only that it will be a long time before it does, if at all.

[Hellion]

Labour hasn't won an election since Tony Blair; and that's a riddle of why they've yet to solve. Gordon Brown, Ed Milband, Jeremy Corbyn and now Sir Starmer... are just not connecting to the people in the way they need to win elections.

In fairness to Ed Miliband, I likely wouldn't be photographed well attempting to eat a bacon sandwich either.

[Mister Mets]

One problem with your reasoning. Anyone who is able to gain the support of Trumpian voters and model themselves as the next Donald Trump isn't going to be very intelligent.

Sure, it's possible that a Republican might make it into office, but they will have to have the support of all of the Republicans plus a handful of Indies and Democrats. Indies and Democrats are not going to vote for a Trump wannabe, and Trump supporters aren't going to vote for someone who is 'Smart'. Every Republican in Congress who is kissing Trump's ring isn't displaying any amount of intelligence, considering how many of them eventually get thrown under the bus by Trump for the slightest of slights.

I'm not saying it couldn't ever happen, only that it will be a long time before it does, if at all.

You may be optimistic in figuring Republicans won't know what to do if elected again.

Looking at one potential nominee, Ron DeSantis will be reasonably experienced with six years in the US House, and presumably six years as a large state Governor. He has a Magna Cum Laude from Yale, and a JD Cum Laude from Harvard Law School. You may think he's appealing to the lowest common denominator, but that doesn't mean he's intellectually one of them.

If you presume that the "general population" has no sense of history or no deep memory then I don't really see what's the use either way about caring about "lessons of the past" or learning from it.

By your own logic, Corbyn's defeat isn't a big deal because people have short memories. Blair's victory has no lessons because people have short memories. So treat every election as if it's from scratch and entirely of the present...which on the whole isn't really a bad approach at all, I recommend taking it.



Over the past year, you have had riots in Northern Ireland, you have Scottish Independence as a major political force, and both of them are dealing with stuff that's 100 Years Old and counting, so quite obviously the idea that the general electorate doesn't know history, or doesn't care about grudges, or are essentially goldfish has a problem with this thing called reality.

My advice is to not assume that people are idiots. Even when they vote for a wrong candidate or an idea you disagree with that doesn't mean they are idiots. It might mean they are evil, or they have wrong ideas, or are emotionally insecure to be led astray by any idea that sounds good here and there, but that by itself doesn't signify any lack of intelligence.

I think you may be making some category errors in your response.

He could believe that voters have short memories, and won't hold Corbyn against Labour in elections in several years with a different shadow cabinet.

But that's different from saying that they should not look into how Blair won, especially considering that Blair is the only person to win parliamentary majorities for Labour in a fifty-year period. Perhaps what worked for Blair at the time won't work for anyone now, but there are certain strategies that are evergreen.

[Jack Dracula]

I fear that's no exaggeration. Practically every state with a Republican in the governor's office (i.e. Florida and Texas) has either enacted poorly disguised voter suppression bills or are in the process of doing so while states helmed by Democrats but with strong Republican legislatures (i.e. Pennsylvania) are working on similar bills. It's been said in this thread more times than can be counted: Republicans don't want to govern, they want to rule and are more than willing to flush democracy down the toilet in order to return to power, then stay there. Another concern is that the next Republican president will be every bit the irredeemable, unconscionable sociopath Trump was, but far smarter and won't make the same mistakes he did, and that's nothing short of frightening, considering all the damage Dolt45 had done while in office. Add in a right leaning, conservative Supreme Court with two questionable Justices (Kegger Kavanaugh and Amy Covid Barrett) and that concern doubles. Until someone convinces me otherwise, this country is in serious trouble, the upcoming midterms will be crucial in checking the ambitions of the GQP to destroy everything America stands for.

I've been wondering about the part in bolds. The nationwide push is obviously coordinated by someone. Turns out it's an organization called the American Legislative Exchange Council with help from a certain D-bag of great renown.
It won't surprise anyone to learn this group is very closely affiliated with the Heritage Foundation.

[Tami]

The making of a myth

ADDISON, Tex. — Key elements of the baseless claim that the 2020 election was stolen from President Donald Trump took shape in an airplane hangar here two years earlier, promoted by a Republican businessman who has sold everything from Tex-Mex food in London to a wellness technology that beams light into the human bloodstream.

At meetings beginning late in 2018, as Republicans were smarting from midterm losses in Texas and across the country, Russell J. Ramsland Jr. and his associates delivered alarming presentations on electronic voting to a procession of conservative lawmakers, activists and donors.

Ramsland, a failed congressional candidate with a Harvard MBA, pitched a claim that seemed rooted in evidence: Voting-machine audit logs — lines of codes and time stamps that document the machines’ activities — contained indications of vote manipulation. In the retrofitted hangar that served as his company’s offices at the edge of a municipal airstrip outside Dallas, Ramsland attempted to persuade failed Republican candidates to challenge their election results and force the release of additional data that might prove manipulation.

“We had to find the right candidate,” said Laura Pressley, a former Ramsland ally whose own claim that audit logs showed fraud had been rejected in court two years earlier. “We had to find one who knew they won.”

No candidate agreed to bring a challenge, and the idea of widespread vote manipulation remained on the political fringe — until 2020, when Ramsland’s assertions were seized upon by influential allies of Trump. The president himself accelerated the spread of those claims into the GOP mainstream as he latched onto an array of baseless ideas to explain his loss in November.

The enduring myth that the 2020 election was rigged was not one claim by one person. It was many claims stacked one atop the other, repeated by a phalanx of Trump allies. This is the previously unreported origin story of a core set of those claims, ideas that were advanced not by renowned experts or by insiders who had knowledge of flawed voting systems but by Ramsland and fellow conservative activists as they pushed a fledgling company, Allied Security Operations Group, into a quixotic attempt to find evidence of widespread fraud where none existed.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Perhaps what worked for Blair at the time won't work for anyone now, but there are certain strategies that are evergreen.

On that level, you can learn from any election campaign at any point in any place and Tony Blair's victory is of no concern.

The point is invoking Blair at this point is obviously a political attempt at making him into a legacy and making him something the Labour party in future has no problem associating with, when in fact there are several valid reasons why that war criminal shouldn't be legitimized in any fashion.

[Tami]

‘Why Do We Deserve to Die?’ Kabul’s Hazaras Bury Their Daughters.

KABUL, Afghanistan — One by one they brought the girls up the steep hill, shrouded bodies covered in a ceremonial prayer cloth, the pallbearers staring into the distance. Shouted prayers for the dead broke the silence.

The bodies kept coming and the gravediggers stayed busy, straining in the hot sun. The ceaseless rhythm was grim proof of the preceding day’s news: Saturday afternoon’s triple bombing at a local school had been an absolute massacre, targeting girls. There was barely room atop the steeply pitched hill for all the new graves.

The scale of the killing and the innocence of the victims seemed further unnerving proof of the country’s violent unraveling, as the Taliban make daily gains and the government seems unable to halt their advances or protect its people from mass killings. On Sunday there were mourners everywhere in the neighborhood of the bombing, home to the persecuted Hazara ethnic minority, but hardly any security to protect them.

The death toll exceeded even previous massacres in this bustling neighborhood of a minority long singled out for persecution by the Taliban and the Islamic State. Afghanistan’s second vice president, Sarwar Danesh, himself a Hazara, said more than 80 people had been killed in the attack.

After the 2001 American invasion, the Hazaras were a minority that made the most of the country’s new educational and business opportunities, and they make up a large part of the country’s young technocrat generation.

They have grown increasingly angry at the government, accusing the security forces of standing by while they suffer horrific casualties in terrorist attacks. Now, on the edge of what many fear will become a return of Taliban rule in many areas with the planned American troop withdrawal, and a new civil war some see as inevitable, the Hazara are increasingly determined to take their security into their own hands.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

One problem with your reasoning. Anyone who is able to gain the support of Trumpian voters and model themselves as the next Donald Trump isn't going to be very intelligent.

Sure, it's possible that a Republican might make it into office, but they will have to have the support of all of the Republicans plus a handful of Indies and Democrats. Indies and Democrats are not going to vote for a Trump wannabe, and Trump supporters aren't going to vote for someone who is 'Smart'. Every Republican in Congress who is kissing Trump's ring isn't displaying any amount of intelligence, considering how many of them eventually get thrown under the bus by Trump for the slightest of slights.

I'm not saying it couldn't ever happen, only that it will be a long time before it does, if at all.

A Trump acolyte running for president doesn't have to be SEEN as smart, he just has to BE smart and not do the stupid stuff Dolt45 had done should he manage to win the election. Now, who that standard bearer for the party ends up being is anybody's guess, I'm thinking it might be another dark horse no one saw coming, just like Trump, you might well laugh, but that could be Tucker Carlson. He's been the GQP's unofficial firebrand and is just the right sociopath who could stir up the Trump crazies masquerading as his base and vote for him in the sort of numbers that put Trump in the White House.

Meanwhile, I saw these cartoons on Twitter:





Pretty on point if you ask me.

[Tendrin]

T
The Democrat party

DemocratIC. *Please*.