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

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, as well as 2021, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” published profiles of the U.S. House Representative from Texas’ 26th Congressional District, Mike Burgess, the U.S. House Representative from Texas’ 26th Congressional District whose claim to fame is discussing masturbating fetuses touching themselves in the womb for their own pleasure as part of his “pro-life” arguments before Congress. Burgess has also openly discussed the impeachment of Barack Obama (declining to comment WHAT the impeachable offense he committed was), going on FOX News to call for witch hunts into the attacks in Benghazi, amongst other tacky quotes and votes. Not surprisingly, he also bought into the Center for Medical Progress’ “sting” video and tried defunding Plannned Parenthood a few years ago. In 2017, Mike Burgess was looking forward to trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and when asked about the millions of people who would lose their insurance coverage as a result, he laughed it off and was excited to do so because it would mean “more freedom”.

Ah yes. The freedom to die because you can’t afford your medical costs anymore. That’s something to strive for, Mike. Especially for someone who purports himself to be a “pro-life” physician.

Texas has been trending more and more blue every year, but Texas’ 26th Congressional District still has a +11 Republican lean. His voting record still shows us that Burgess is the same old frowny sack of nuts he’s always been:

• May 2nd, 2018: Mike Burgess is one of 18 Republicans who sign on to a letter asking to nominate Donald Trump for a Nobel Prize.
• December 3rd, 2019: Rep. Burgess votes against a resolution to disallow Russia from re-entering the G7 and makes it the G8 until it leaves Ukraine.
• December 18th, 2019: Burgess votes against the first impeachment of Donald Trump.
• May 15th, 2020: Burgess votes against the HEROES Act, to further support the healthcare industry and citizens affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.
• December 10th, 2020: Burgess signs his name to an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, begging them to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
• January 7th, 2021: Michael Burgess votes for the objection to the electoral college’s votes in the 2020 election, a failure to send any sort of message that he wasn’t intimidated or sympathetic to those who attacked the Capitol to attempt a violent coup.
• January 13th, 2021: Rep. Burgess votes against the second impeachment of Donald Trump, because the Republican Party no longer feels like they should be accountable for anything, including failed coups that result in the deaths of both their participants and police officers.
• February 4th, 2021: Michael Burgess votes to keep Marjorie Taylor Greene’s committee assignments.
• February 25th, 2021: Burgess votes against HR 5, the latest version of the Equality Act, that would provide workplace protections for LGBTQ Americans.
• March 3rd, 2021: Rep. Burgess votes against HR 1, a bill created to prevent the corruption of money in politics, and protect voter access to the ballot box.
• March 3rd, 2021: Michael Burgess votes against the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021.
• March 10th, 2021: Burgess votes against the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, because he feels people deserve to die in poverty during a pandemic.
• March 17th, 2021: Rep. Burgess votes against the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, likely because they feel the 2nd Amendment remaining absolute is more important than preventing people with a history of domestic abuse from owning a firearm.
• November 5th, 2021: Michael Burgess votes against HR 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
• March 31st, 2022: Burgess votes against HR 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which would limit the cost that drug companies could list insulin at to $35 and make sure no diabetic was priced out of surviving their condition. Bill Michaelson would rather they be gouged by pharmaceutical giants and/or die.
• May 18th, 2022: Michael Burgess is one of 192 Republicans who votes against HR 7790, to create supplemental funding for infant formula (while claiming to be pro- life).
• May 18th, 2022: Rep. Burgess votes against HR 350, the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, because these days, a plank of the Republican Party is ostensibly domestic terror.
• May 19th, 2022: Burgess votes against HR 7688, a bill which would help prevent gas companies from gouging customers on prices.
• July 15th, 2022: Michael Burgess votes against House Amendment 262, which would require the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and Secretary of Defense to publish a report on the infiltration of American law enforcement by Neo-Nazis and white supremacists, offer measures to be taken to remove them from their ranks, and prevent further infiltration by others.
• July 13th, 2022: Burgess votes against the Honoring Our PACT Act, to provide healthcare to veterans affected by toxic burn pits while serving in the War on Terror that leave them more susceptible to forms of cancer.
• July 19th, 2022: Rep. Burgess is one of 157 Republicans who vote against the “Respect for Marriage Act”, which would codify same sex marriage into law nationally.
• July 21st, 2022: Burgess is one of 195 Republicans who vote against the Right to Contraception Act, which codified the right of Americans to have access to birth control.

Michael Burgess is currently trending more towards the anti-immgrant demographic, not blinking while he was shouted down and booed by constituents outraged over the Trump administration’s family separation policy, which he dug in and stated his support for. By April 2019, he showed he’s far enough gone that he’d even support the extreme idea to completely shut down the U.S./Mexico border so no one crosses it in either direction..

And even with Donald Trump gone, he’s still xenophobic enough to co-sponsor HR 2729, the “Finish the Wall” Act in the current term of Congress.

This bloated tick upon our legislative branch is now approaching 72 years of age, and will regrettably be unlikely to leave office until he’s decided to retire or he shuffles off his mortal coil, including in the 2022 elections, where he only faces a Libertarian challenger. Should the worst happen and the GOP retakes control of the House, he’s going to be one of the most likely candidates to submit a federal ban on abortion, so those fetuses and keep on wankin’ in the womb.

[CSTowle]

Following Fox News is a bit different than paying attention to someone like George Will.

It's worth following a wide array of news sources, but an important factor is editorial quality. I'm conservative, but there are progressive media sources I pay attention to. It's easy to have major blind spots if you refuse to do something like that, since you might be unaware of stories that are inconvenient to your side. It's useful to get the best version of the other side's argument.

This is not why people on the left watch Fox News. They're often quite slipshod when it comes to facts, so if you wanted to get the best version of right-wing arguments, there are much better sources. It can be still be useful for people on the left to understand where some Republicans are coming from, and what cultural issues are seen differently. That said, it is quite easy to exaggerate the significance of Fox News. Tucker Carlson has between 3-4.5 million viewers. Over 50,000,000 people voted for Republican candidates for US House in 2018, an election that went badly for the party.

Hatewatching does not explain Fox's ratings.

First bolded, there is a difference. The first actually reflects the arguments and rhetoric you're likely to hear from registered Republican voters who "like Trump because he's not a politician" and "want to throw all the bums out". The second is what more intelligent conservatives do when they start to feel guilty for adhering to what is ultimately a selfish and simplistic view of politics and want reassurance that what they're doing is really the practical thing and ultimately better for the country in the long run (even if it's mainly "let me keep my money and leave me alone", a sentiment anyone over the age of 8 should be past).

I'm far more interested in what the average Republican voter wants, which is not to listen to George Will. I'd guess if they did they'd have about as much interest in what he has to say as what the Clintons do (especially as Will is a Never-Trumper). He's one of those Republicans who want to believe they didn't create the atmosphere for a Trump (or worse, a Trump with actual beliefs and ambition) and that this is just a temporary aberration from the conservative status quo that will eventually right itself, and if we get to keep the more conservative Court that's just a happy but unintended consequence of the Party's temporary insanity.

On the second bolded it's useful to listen to the George Wills of the world if you're interested in debating politics from a sanitized theoretical view, but if you're interested in what's actually happening now and what's likely to happen in the future then he's far less relevant than a Tucker Carlson or even the Qanon crowd.

[achilles]

I'm not sure if this is national news, but it was big news here. We have a local channel , KTLA 5, wherein a 24year anchor/reporter Lynette Romero, widely loved, who asked management for evening assignments so she could spend more time with her young family. Understandable, but the answer was "NO". So she arranged to move to another channel. So, as is the way of that channel in times before, and with any decent channel, they mentioned that she left. That's basically all, after 24 years. Previous people who left were allowed on set to say goodbye, she wasn't, there is usually a video montage of their greatest hits, and there wasn't.

But here's the punchline. She had a co-anchor, Mark Mester, a 20-30 something, a surfer and overall athlete who is very good looking, and also had a segment where he cooked all sorts of frankly good looking stuff. He described himself as Romero's best friend and was very,very, very, very upset on air. For about 10 minutes, they allowed him to rant. He really laid into KTLA's new station manager, and apologized to Romero while his co-anchors looked very uncomfortable. He was immediately suspended, then two days later, he was fired. And he was one of their most popular anchors/reporters. Who did everything KTLA asked of him.

Now viewers are calling for a boycott. That meltdown was like nothing I'd ever seen before, he was crying at times. I'll miss him, but kudos to him for standing up for his friend,even though he must have known he would be fired.

Here they are:

[worstblogever]

I'm not sure if this is national news, but it was big news here. We have a local channel , KTLA 5, wherein a 24year anchor/reporter Lynette Romero, widely loved, who asked management for evening assignments so she could spend more time with her young family. Understandable, but the answer was "NO". So she arranged to move to another channel. So, as is the way of that channel in times before, and with any decent channel, they mentioned that she left. That's basically all, after 24 years. Previous people who left were allowed on set to say goodbye, she wasn't, there is usually a video montage of their greatest hits, and there wasn't.

But here's the punchline. She had a co-anchor, Mark Mester, a 20-30 something, a surfer and overall athlete who is very good looking, and also had a segment where he cooked all sorts of frankly good looking stuff. He described himself as Romero's best friend and was very,very, very, very upset on air. For about 10 minutes, they allowed him to rant. He really laid into KTLA's new station manager, and apologized to Romero while his co-anchors looked very uncomfortable. He was immediately suspended, then two days later, he was fired. And he was one of their most popular anchors/reporters. Who did everything KTLA asked of him.

Now viewers are calling for a boycott. That meltdown was like nothing I'd ever seen before, he was crying at times. I'll miss him, but kudos to him for standing up for his friend,even though he must have known he would be fired.

We all should be so lucky to have a friend this loyal, frankly, and hope we don't have bosses that are so inflexible towards family needs after decades of service to the organization.

[Mister Mets]

Yes, it is sadly typical that we have to point out the new lows that you find in trying to defend your party of seditionists and human traffickers.

You could stop going out of your way to defend the worst of the lot. And, I dunno, say something about the ones who actually show any sign of knowing how to govern. Just an idea.

I'm curious what you think you're responding to.

Who am I defending in this chain of posts and how? I posted a link to a Washington Post story about an update to an investigation that has been mentioned a lot in this thread.

Often when the claim is that one person is defending someone or something bad, it's vague on the thing that matters: is the person telling the truth? If one person is defending something reprehensible by lying, or using sketchy rhetorical strategies (leaving out important context, moving goalposts, etc.), that is despicable and should be pointed out. But if the claim is that someone's defending something reprehensible when they're telling the truth, the critic is typically in the wrong and should be told so.

What I've said about Gaetz doesn't fall into either category. Perhaps you're reading something else into it. You suggested I was trying to cast doubt on someone's crimes by linking to an article about why prosecutors might not want to go forward with a case. As an informed adult, I recognize that bad people often get away with crimes because the witnesses are also bad people, who are often considered unreliable.

I am comfortable with this exchange being a proxy for which of us is more trustworthy. If anyone thinks I used unseemly tactics to defend Matt Gaetz, you should definitely trust worstblogever over me. Although I would appreciate someone pointing out what I've said that is objectionable.

If you don't see an example of me using unseemly tactics to defend Matt Gaetz, keep in mind that worstblogever thinks what I've said is so bad as to merit personal insults.

[Dalak]

Well any answer would really depend on one thing Mets: do you think Gaetz is guilty or not (Specifically not whether he will be FOUND guilty or not)? That is because there are reasons to post such a story without personal comment as you did, and those scenarios depend on what you believe Gaetz is guilty/not guilty of.

[worstblogever]

If you don't see an example of me using unseemly tactics to defend Matt Gaetz, keep in mind that worstblogever thinks what I've said is so bad as to merit personal insults.

If you consider it an insult to be called out for sharing speculative "news" that a pedophile in your party who sought a pardon for child sex trafficking won't be charged as if that absolves said pedophile...

You can not continue to defend him. And pretend you're the "victim" here for being called out for it.

Y'know, "they doth protest too much" and all that, "hit dogs holler" optics.

Because sir, this is quite the hill to die on in a political discussion. White Nationalist Matt Gaetz getting away with banging minors.


The proper way to share a story like that would be, y'know, "WTF? How the f***? How are they letting a pedophile who tried to get a pardon for what he did get away with it?"

That context should be there for any person that doesn't exhibit partisan cult-like tendencies.

[Tendrin]

At least he didn't wear a t-shirt.

[Mister Mets]

Well any answer would really depend on one thing Mets: do you think Gaetz is guilty or not (Specifically not whether he will be FOUND guilty or not)? That is because there are reasons to post such a story without personal comment as you did, and those scenarios depend on what you believe Gaetz is guilty/not guilty of.

I don't know if Matt Gaetz is guilty of trafficking a minor or not.

[Malvolio]

I don't know if Matt Gaetz is guilty of trafficking a minor or not.

Don't play dumb. You must have an opinion on whether or not you think he did it. So do you think he did it? Yes or no.

[Reviresco]

If it's really classified, isn't it against the rules for him to even talk about it?

I'm sure Trump half declassified it telepathically, so the guy could campaign talk about it, but it's still classified for everyone else so they can't see it.

[Mister Mets]

Don't play dumb. You must have an opinion on whether or not you think he did it. So do you think he did it? Yes or no.

I honestly don't know if he did it or not. A lot of the discussion is about rumors about stuff behind the scenes that none of us are privy to.

This does get to an important distinction. I think it's important to accept ambiguity. There's a lot we don't know. Maybe at some point we'll know more about this question, but until then it's reasonable to not be sure either way.

[JackDaw]

Don't play dumb. You must have an opinion on whether or not you think he did it. So do you think he did it? Yes or no.

Surely it’s fairly standard not to have a very strong opinion on large majority of cases that have not yet been tried in court?

In reality most of the time there’s not enough evidence in public domain to justify a really strong opinion either way….and certainly anybody called up to jury service would have to have an open mind, or not serve (on jury).

[worstblogever]

I don't know if Matt Gaetz is guilty of trafficking a minor or not.

Surely it’s fairly standard not to have a very strong opinion on large majority of cases that have not yet been tried in court?

People don't seek pardons for s*** they didn't do and weren't yet accused of.

Don't play dumb. You must have an opinion on whether or not you think he did it. So do you think he did it? Yes or no.

I wonder if they're going to stop burying their heads in the sand before it pops out on the other side of the Earth.

But, y'know, nobody's "really defending" him here for the sex crimes he sought a pardon for and there are literal Venmo receipts for.

[achilles]

We all should be so lucky to have a friend this loyal, frankly, and hope we don't have bosses that are so inflexible towards family needs after decades of service to the organization.

She would up at their biggest competitor, and I wouldn't be surprised if Mester does too. And they have a lot of anchors and reporters who should be worried. I sure would be.

I wonder if it's related to their losing talent left and right. Three others, some long timers, some not, in the last few months.