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

[Tendrin]

Bottom line...

If you can't even bring yourself to actually name the people that are creating a problem?

I have to wonder just how serious you are about addressing that problem.

He specifically warned Amazon against retaliation and specifically mentioned Alabama. We're not idiots. Everyone knew who he was talking about, and everyone knows what Amazon is doing. To quote Biden, 'C'mon, man'.

You're being deliberately obtuse but then, we know that giving credit to any Democrat is a bridge too far for you.

You don't have to love Democrats but you don't have to operate in such ridiculously bad faith about it either.

[numberthirty]

He specifically warned Amazon against retaliation and specifically mentioned Alabama. We're not idiots. Everyone knew who he was talking about, and everyone knows what Amazon is doing. To quote Biden, 'C'mon, man'.

You're being deliberately obtuse but then, we know that giving credit to any Democrat is a bridge too far for you.

You don't have to love Democrats but you don't have to operate in such ridiculously bad faith about it either.

If someone's going to throw around "Bad Faith..." consistently?

Maybe dial it back on what is provably false. Namely, what is in blue.

Most "Business As Usual..." Democrats? What you could give them credit for is pretty minimal.

That said, that reality does not equal "Giving Credit To Any Democrat Is A Bridge Too Far For You..."

Never mind that it goes double when the person saying it was the one that was discussing Warren when I said that she was close enough to perfect for me.

[numberthirty]

Never mind being involved in discussing it when I pointed out that Katie Porter should have been kept on a certain committee.

[Tendrin]

If someone's going to throw around "Bad Faith..." consistently?

Maybe dial it back on what is provably false. Namely, what is in blue.

Most "Business As Usual..." Democrats? What you could give them credit for is pretty minimal.

That said, that reality does not equal "Giving Credit To Any Democrat Is A Bridge Too Far For You..."

Never mind that it goes double when the person saying it was the one that was discussing Warren when I said that she was close enough to perfect for me.

No.

I don't agree on either front. I like Warren. I was an early Warren voter. It's nice that you say you were okay with her, but given the amount of ridiculous criticism I somewhat recall you levying her way over the years, you don't get to say 'well I said she's good enough once' now as a deflection from your broader habits. Like I said before: you want the spectacle of Trumpism. You just want it from a supposed left.

We can talk about whether or not Biden's actions go far enough without pretending people are stupid, or aren't 'walking the walk', whatever that actually means in this context. Bernie's actual statements aren't actually going to help more than putting in place a friendly labor secretary who first joined a Union at 21 years of age.

[numberthirty]

No.

I don't agree on either front. I like Warren. I was an early Warren voter. It's nice that you were okay with he , but given the amount of criticism I somewhat recall you levying her way over the years, you don't get to say 'well I said she's good enough' now as a deflection from your broader habits. Like I said before: you want the spectacle of Trumpism. You just want it from a supposed left.

Again, provably false.

Katie Porter is not "Spectacle..."(or whatever the heck that is supposed to even mean...)

She is someone who shows up, and calls out the actual nuts and bolts of an issue.

Which is pretty hard to do when you won't even call the company that is apparently an issue so big that Ford workers will be "Fine..." by it's actual name.

Is it better than him having done nothing? Sure.

Is it particularly noteworthy when other folks are actually calling out the specifics of what the problems are? Not so much.

[Tendrin]

Again, provably false.

No. No, it is not. First, you've just demonstrated it in your initial post on this subject, and do so again this response.

Katie Porter is not "Spectacle..."(or whatever the heck that is supposed to even mean...)

Congressional Hearings are *entirely* political spectacle, my dude. It's nice that we can learn something from them, but they are absolutely spectacle.

She is someone who shows up, and calls out the actual nuts and bolts of an issue.

Yes, that's nice, to the extent that it actually happens.

Which is pretty hard to do when you won't even call the company that is apparently an issue so big that Ford workers will be "Fine..." by it's actual name.

...this doesn't even try to make sense. We all know who he was talking about. He didn't have to name names. If you know anything about what's happening in Alabama, you knew he was talking to Amazon in his warning against obstruction to Unionism.

Ford's workers *will* be fine and the system they're operating doesn't, and, shouldn't require the President to jump in straight out. The office is bigger than that. That you even think he should is exactly *why* I pointed out that what you want is a left-wing sort of Trumpism, where the President goes after 'the ones causing all the problems' loudly. This actually isn't behavior that ought to be normalized for the highest office out the gate when a labor dispute crops up. We shouldn't expect the president to immediately need to weigh in.

Is it better than him having done nothing? Sure.

He did a lot more than that.

Is it particularly noteworthy when other folks are actually calling out the specifics of what the problems are? Not so much.

The president talking directly in favor of Unions is a big deal. It's the first time that's happened in a while. But let's remember that the President weighing in on a subject carries the considerable risk of making the subject about the President and not the workers. In deep red Alabama, that carries potential costs, so a broader message of support for Unionization is, in that way, actually a more politically astute statement for Biden to make than a more narrow one that risks making it easier for some people to take a local and important Union battle about amazon workers and make it into something about Joe Biden. Remember, many of the people working for Amazon in deep red Alabama are probably Republicans who don't love Joe Biden *or* Bernie Sanders all that much, and their support actually does come with a potential downside in that sense.

Bernie Sanders speaking out, of course, doesn't really have the same impact, or carry the exact same risks, but it's not like people won't gladly weaponize his support against the amazon workers

[numberthirty]

...

...this doesn't even try to make sense. We all know who he was talking about. He didn't have to name names. If you know anything about what's happening in Alabama, you knew he was talking to Amazon in his warning against obstruction to Unionism.

Ford's workers *will* be fine and the system shouldn't require the President to jump in. The office is bigger than that. That you even think he should is exactly *why* I pointed out that what you want is a left-wing sort of Trumpism, where the President goes after 'the ones causing all the problems' loudly. This actually isn't behavior that ought to be normalized for the highest office out the gate when a labor dispute crops up. We shouldn't expect the president to immediately need to weigh in.

...

If the entire country was the half-a-dozen or so folks that usually turn up in this thread?

See where you are coming from.

Meanwhile, out in actual reality?

There are a lot of folks who are in a tight spot who might not have the details even if they happened to catch a bit of what is happening.

Knowing that those folks are a large part of how it actually is?

Yeah, you are going to need to actually name names.

Even then, the headway you will make is still in doubt.

If you won't?

It is that much more of a long shot.

[numberthirty]

Not a silver bullet, but noteworthy...

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/3/...********police

An historic moment: Chicago on verge of creating elected commission in charge of police

[WestPhillyPunisher]

10 Dead In Mass Shooting At Colorado Supermarket

Boulder Shooting Survivor: ‘It Doesn’t Feel Like There’s Anywhere Safe Anymore, Sometimes’

Critics Tell GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert What To Do With Her ‘Prayers’ After Boulder Shooting

**********

Sidney Powell Says ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Believe Her Election Fraud Lies

Trump’s campaign lawyer baselessly claimed that Dominion Voting Systems machines were rigged to weigh Biden votes more heavily than Trump votes. I guess the lawsuit Dominion filed against Powell made her see the light. Meanwhile, Qpublican legislators are still supporting the big lie. They have no choice, fearing the threat of being primaried by Trump followers.

**********

Meghan McCain Apologizes For Spreading Trump’s ‘Racist Rhetoric’ Against Asians

“The View” co-host was slammed by John Oliver on “Last Week Tonight” after she posted a “Stop Asian Hate” Instagram post. Too little, too late, sweetcheeks.

**********

Jeanine Pirro Describes Immigrant Children As A ‘Lower Level Of Human Being’

It’s the second time this month the Fox News host’s remarks on immigration have drawn comparisons to Nazi rhetoric. Wrong, honeybunch, YOU'RE the lower level of human being.

**********

Trump To Launch His Own Social Media Platform, Adviser Says

The former president has been banned and suspended from numerous social media sites following his incitement of the deadly Capitol riots. I'm rather skeptical of that claim, especially since EVERYTHING Trump created quickly went down in flames.

[worstblogever]

It was on this day in both 2015 as well as 2016, that “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” profiled Rob Maness, a failed candidate for U.S. Senate from Louisiana in 2014 and for Governor of Louisiana in 2015 who drew a fair share of notoriety for airing a political ad where he showed his worthiness for being a senator by honest-to-goodness wrestling a live alligator. And during the 2014 primary, Maness challenged Senator Mary Landrieu by claiming that she would still support slavery if the issue was voted upon, while declaring in another speech that racism and prejudice in America were over and that the nation had become “color blind”. It was puzzling to hear Maness argue against the Affordable Care Act, as the crux of his argument was that “healthcare is not a right because it has to be taken from another human being and given to you”, which makes no sense whatsoever. Adding into his bizarre candidacy, Maness also decried the government for issuing farm subsidies, even though he himself had been collecting them for years. It seems unlikely Maness will ever win election if he doesn’t set his sights lower than the U.S. Senate.

It was on this date in 2017 that “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” profiled former Florida State Senator Alan Hays, who served six years after reaching office in the 2010 Tea Party Wave. In his six years in office, Hays developed a reputation for submitting absolutely bonkers bills, including but not limited to one he spewed out in July of 2014 that insisted conservative filmmaker (and convicted felon) Dinesh D'Souza's "America" should be required viewing for all high school students, the time he tried to nullify the Affordable Care Act, or the fact that he once passed out fliers in the Florida State legislature decrying Islam as "a threat to the United States" and that during his efforts to try and get Florida to pass an unnecessary ban on Sharia Law, that he compared his measure to being like a "vaccination against a disease". Which shows that not only is he Islamophobic, but he doesn't quite understand how vaccines work. After court-ordered re-drawing of the Florida state legislature's electoral map, Alan Hays didn't think he could be re-elected to his seat in the State Senate, and instead ran to become the man who would oversee elections in Lake County, Florida. Because Florida Republicans have such a good track record of not stealing elections, right? And it's not like Hays has ever stated his own paranoid opinion that a lot of Hispanics in Florida vote illegally. Oh wait, he did in 2011.



(That's Humphrey on the left)

On this date in 2018, 2019, as well as 2020, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” published its first profile of Justin Humphrey, a member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives from District 19 who just reached office for the first time in 2016 with 52% of the vote, and almost immediately popped up on our radar as an anti-abortion fanatic. This is not only because he is one of 19 sponsors of a bill, HR 1004, proposed in the Oklahoma state legislature that would direct every public official in Oklahoma to exercise their authority to stop murder of unborn children by abortion, because wow does that fly in the face of the Roe v. Wade ruling and contain inflammatory language… but it’s not even the most extreme statement Justin Humphrey has made on the issue. It's still no small feat to stand out among anti-abortion loons in Oklahoma. Honestly, there were 18 other co-sponsors of the bill we just mentioned. What makes Justin Humphrey special enough to warrant our attention?

Well, it might be that he volunteered his opinion that “men should have a say” because pregnant women are “hosts” once they’ve been “irresponsible” enough to have sex and get pregnant:

“I believe one of the breakdowns in our society is that we have excluded the man out of all of these types of decisions. I understand that they feel like that is their body. I feel like it is a separate — what I call them is, is you’re a ‘host.’ And you know when you enter into a relationship you’re going to be that host and so, you know, if you pre-know that then take all precautions and don’t get pregnant. So that’s where I’m at. I’m like, hey, your body is your body and be responsible with it. But after you’re irresponsible then don’t claim, well, I can just go and do this with another body, when you’re the host and you invited that in.”

Now, if you are a sane person, you just read that and are trying to process if it sounds more like something out of “The Handmaid’s Tale” or Ridley Scott’s “Alien” saga. But that’s the mental state of being of Humphrey, who’s saying out loud what you might suspect a lot of anti-abortion Republicans think like.

But days after making that statement, Humphrey unflinchingly sponsored legislation, HB 1441, that would require a woman to get the father’s permission before seeking an abortion, which neglects that a paternity test can’t confirm who a baby’s father is during a pregnancy without risking a miscarriage or developmental defects to the fetus. So really, any random guy could stake claim to being the “father” and stop an abortion. Also, the Supreme Court struck down a similar law in 1992 that passed in Pennsylvania’s state legislature, so the legal precedent was this would be overturned as unconstitutional almost immediately. Of course, Humphrey claimedto be on the receiving end of threats after all this utter dickery during his first six weeks on the job.

While we were hoping that with only 52% was all he managed in 2016, and prior to that election, Democrats held the seat from District 19 for over a decade, that maybe Humphrey would be a “one and done” legislator, we regret to report that he managed to be re-elected with 68% of the vote in 2018. The only other news we have to report is that this rejected villain from A Handmaid’s Tale broke his hip shortly after his re-election, and while he was laid up in bed, had over $40,000 worth of cattle stolen from him.

Justin Humphrey won another term in office in 2020 on the benefit that both the GOP Primary election and general election were straight-up canceled for his seat in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, and he has returned to the legislature this term to sponsor sensible bills like OKLAHOMA SHOULD ISSUE BIGFOOT HUNTING LICENSES. We are not joking, and this crytpid-hunting loon isn’t either.

“Tourism is one of the biggest attractions we have in my House district. Establishing an actual hunting season and issuing licenses for people who want to hunt Bigfoot will just draw more people to our already beautiful part of the state. It will be a great way for people to enjoy our area and to have some fun.”
He noted how the town of Honobia in southeast Oklahoma already has a Bigfoot festival each October so the hunting season would ideally line up with that event.
“Having a license and a tag would give people a way to prove they participated in the hunt. Again, the overall goal is to get people to our area to enjoy the natural beauty and to have a great time, and if they find Bigfoot while they’re at it, well hey, that’s just an even bigger prize.”
The lawmaker specifically noted that he doesn’t want people to actually kill Bigfoot — instead he hopes to include language for his bill to secure at least $25,000 for the first person to capture the beast.
“A lot of people don’t believe in Bigfoot, but a lot of people do. Just like some people like to go deer hunting, while some don’t.”

…

Again, this Sasquatch obsession… this is the third time we’ve profiled a Republican who’s looking for the missing link in the wilds of their district, from Congressman Tim Burchett in Tennessee, and former one-term Congressman Denver Riggleman. Just… this is the sort of thing they’re doing during a pandemic, where people are struggling to earn money that’s barely a living wage. What the f*** happened to the Republican Party? We know they were always corrupt and racist, but when did they go into a full breakdown where they sound like they’re cribbing notes from X-Files episodes?

[Mister Mets]

Again, provably false.

Katie Porter is not "Spectacle..."(or whatever the heck that is supposed to even mean...)

She is someone who shows up, and calls out the actual nuts and bolts of an issue.

Which is pretty hard to do when you won't even call the company that is apparently an issue so big that Ford workers will be "Fine..." by it's actual name.

Is it better than him having done nothing? Sure.

Is it particularly noteworthy when other folks are actually calling out the specifics of what the problems are? Not so much.

There was a decent write-up a few days ago in the Los Angeles Times about the Katie Porter situation, and how she was recently booted from the Financial Services Committee after disagreements with leadership over the use of evidence in committee meetings, and a rejected proposal to change the committee's exclusive status (which would allow members to join other committees.)

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...tic-colleagues

WASHINGTON — Democrats loved watching Orange County Rep. Katie Porter skewer Trump administration appointees and corporate executives in congressional hearings.
But it felt different when Porter’s progressive passion and impatience for convention turned to them.

Just as she wielded a whiteboard and sharp questioning to expose the flaws and outdated thinking she saw in Postal Service management or the nation’s COVID-19 testing system, Porter recently took aim at House Democrats’ rules and traditions for what is usually a behind-the-scenes competition to determine which lawmakers sit on which coveted committees.

It was a calculated high-stakes gamble that resulted in Porter not returning this year to sit on the Financial Services Committee, one of the House’s most sought-after panels and one for which the former bankruptcy and consumer law professor was highly suited.

Her sharp-elbowed maneuvering and willingness to publicly confront party leaders such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and Los Angeles Rep. Maxine Waters underscored the brash determination that made Porter the surprise national standout of California’s 2018 House freshman class — and a strong contender for the U.S. Senate someday.

But in an institution fueled by seniority and relationships — especially within one’s own party — Porter’s tendency to ruffle feathers could cost her the allies she will need in the future in order to get legislation approved.

In an interview, Porter expressed no regrets that her actions might have cost her support. In some ways, she may have felt she had nothing to lose. Only one of her financial-services-related bills made it through the Democratic-controlled House as part of a broader piece of legislation during her first term, a factor in her decision to focus more on oversight.

“That was a big concern for me as a front-liner,” she said, using the Democrats’ term for a politically vulnerable member, “and as somebody who’s very committed to governance and to doing the work.”

[Mister Mets]

The thing is, we all have had more than enough first hand experience with that slice of America that you claim to be representing. The people who have spent decades lecturing everyone else about what was right and proper, and constructing this whole society based on fake civility and fake morality, never expecting that one day all of the different people they've ostracized and marginalized have now become the mainstream, and that their values are now the ones being shut out from the public sphere. There aren't any high level intellectual debates being had these days about the morality of lynching, and you constantly trying to start one just detracts the rest of the board from more productive conversations that might actually be relevant. I'm sure there are plenty of places you could go to find people whose views align more with your own, but continuing to try and "just ask questions" here isn't really convincing anyone and is just making you look more foolish.

I have not argued about the morality of lynching. My main argument was that a congressman who said something stupid probably didn't intend to make a connection to atrocities committed against African-Americans. You said you weren't sure what his motives were, and that it was immaterial.

The point I've been responding to is a claim that it's really obvious that he's trying to normalize lynching as part of a larger white nationalist plot. That's a pretty high bar, and arguing that someone may be wrong on a narrow point is not some kind of weird academic argument on the merits of lynching. If Roy Chip had some other motive in his comments, it doesn't make the violence of lynching in the past any less horrendous.

One of the defenses for Trump's lies was that he should be taken seriously, but not literally, that he might be wrong in the specifics but that he addresses some larger concern. In political discussions, I do take statements literally (perhaps that's part of why I never supported Trump), which will lead to misinterpretations if the literal question is seen as a proxy for a different question. However I don't want to make the assumption that someone doesn't mean what they say. I wonder if from the outside, I look like a pedant arguing against someone who is clearly exaggerating or had clearly meant to say something else, though that would be resolved if someone else said so.

[worstblogever]

The point I've been responding to is a claim that it's really obvious that he's trying to normalize lynching as part of a larger white nationalist plot. That's a pretty high bar, and arguing that someone may be wrong on a narrow point is not some kind of weird academic argument on the merits of lynching. If Roy Chip had some other motive in his comments, it doesn't make the violence of lynching in the past any less horrendous.
.

But somehow it is the latest defense of obvious white nationalism that you've chosen as a hill to die on.

Which, on brand for a modern Republican, at least.

[Tendrin]

But somehow it is the latest defense of obvious white nationalism that you've chosen as a hill to die on.

Which, on brand for a modern Republican, at least.

We literally just had an insurrection at the capital where they wanted to lynch politicians and erected gallows, but surely no one's rhetoric is contributing to the normalizing of lynching of one's enemies.

Like I said before: this isn't normalization. It's already normalized *as rhetoric*.

[worstblogever]

We literally just had an insurrection at the capital where they wanted to lynch politicians and erected gallows, but surely no one's rhetoric is contributing to the normalizing of lynching of one's enemies.

Like I said before: this isn't normalization. It's already normalized *as rhetoric*.

Remember when Joni Ernst was shooting the ACA in campaign ads in 2014 and people were like, "That doesn't seem responsible rhetoric and could lead to the unhinged patriot movement attempting gun violence," and by the next cycle there were multiple Republicans shooting up "red tape" in similar ads around the country in the years that followed?

Normalization of extremism. And it continues, while the effects play out in real time. Like last night, when Lauren Boebert, the owner of the SHOOTERS GRILL (where waitstaff are encouraged to open carry) posts on Twitter about her befuddlement as to why a mass shooting could have happened, when she just put an ad up with Nancy Pelosi's picture followed by a gunshot.

You played a role in normalizing violence, Boeboo. Own it. Don't play dumb and go "thoughts and prayers" like when people say "God bless you" after a sneeze. It should have a bit more empathy than that.