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

[Tami]

Asian woman, 55, knocked out in unprovoked attack in NYC's Chinatown, police say

A man was arrested after video captured him punching a 55-year-old Asian woman in the face in New York City's Chinatown on Monday, authorities said.

Alexander Wright, 48, of Manhattan, was charged with one count of assault as a hate crime, assault and criminal possession of a controlled substance in connection with the "unprovoked" attack, according to officials.

The woman was walking down Bayard Street shortly after 6 p.m. ET when a man in the opposite direction randomly punched her in the face, causing her to fall to the ground, according to police and surveillance video that New York state Assemblymember Yuh-Line Niou posted on Twitter.

[shooshoomanjoe]

I have to ask. Why are black men assaulting Asians?

[Hypestyle]

I have to ask. Why are black men assaulting Asians?

you have plenty of idiots out there, just like any other ethnic cohort. And a hell of a lot of people with mental issues that are unaddressed. (a rant for another day, on public mental health infrastructure)
For various reasons, these particular incidents tend to make national news.
Worse, you have some people who want to quasi-justify it based largely on Asian-on-black confrontations, which tend to be shared anecdotally in various metropolitan areas, depending on the specific demographic populations-- some cities may have a preponderance of Asian-American owned retail shops (liquor stores, beauty supply clothing, cell phone/electronics) as well as restaurants (usually, storefront carry-out places) and nail/hair shops.. and when these shops have a high degree of black clientele, especially working-class clientele, and when perceptions of disrespect are top of mind, and black-centered 'nativism' comes into play (see the "#ADOS movement"), some people feel pre-justified in unprovoked attacks based on a warped sense of "getting revenge" on a "predatory foreigner"... It's all madness...

a thoughtful analysis by journalist Aaron Foley:
https://tinyurl.com/avhy8c9h

The relationship between Asian and Black Americans at-large has rarely been healthy. Usually one points to the murder of Latasha Harlins in Los Angeles by a Korean shop owner, a prelude to the Los Angeles riots of 1992. (Or, heartlessly, a clip from “Don’t Be a Menace to South Central Without Drinking Your Juice In the Hood” — you know the one.) That’s before you get into the local conversation in Metro Detroit around the ownership of beauty supply stores, nail salons and convenience stores, and who benefits from the Black dollar; the long-simmering tension between Black Detroiters and Arab-Americans, which I detailed in BLAC a few years back; and, of course, the largest stain in Detroit’s Asian American history, the murder of Vincent Chin by two laid-off white Chrysler employees.

Chin, who was Chinese, was blamed for the Japanese car industry’s increasing presence in the American automotive market. His killers were white. Still, though how many Black people do you know who, to this day, won’t buy a Toyota?

Black relationships with Asians are informed by trauma. And within the city limits of Detroit, where the vast majority of Black people in the region are born, raised and have their life experience molded, we only see Asians on TV and in movies.

[TheDarman]

Manchin doesn't necessarily want to restore preclearance. He wants it to apply to all 50 states and territories.

https://www.vox.com/22434054/joe-man...ibuster-senate

I mean, isn’t this kind of the only way to immediately and forever beat the John Roberts’ Court’s opinion on pre-clearance that effectively cut the teeth out of the VRA Reauthorization in the first place? He wanted an updated formula; creating a new one that applies everywhere seems to be non-discriminatory which was Roberts’ problem in the first place in Shelby County v. Holder.

Edward-Issac Dovore, writer of a new book behind the scenes of the 2020 campaign, does agree with you that there are other Democratic Senators who agree with Manchin & Sinema.

That’s why I think Schumer’s strategy of putting up key Democratic priorities for a vote is a smart one. Let everyone at home grow more frustrated with the filibuster, including Non-Party Affiliated Voters. Drive it to a point of a vote to eliminate the filibuster—or at least carve it out for Voting Rights actions (probably for something more like the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act that Democrats can at least say has Murkowski on board). Even if it fails, Democrats can drive the message into the mid-terms that they got a lot done, but they need more help.

As for the For the People Act, it always struck me as a laundry list of big liberal priorities. It never looked like it would actually come together as a real, comprehensive legislative package. It’s more like a Democratic Party platform in this way—and it had some blindspots (not protecting against voter overrides by the state legislature already serves to show how dated it is). Something smaller, more targeted like the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act always seemed to be more of a piece of legislation tailor fit for the moment.

Creating a new pre-clearance that won’t be struck down without advancing to the Supreme Court again (because it at least withstands precedent set by the previous VRA case) is something really important and can allow the DOJ to shape redistricting and new voting laws properly. It also helps Democrats protect from voting rights restrictions outside the South (Wisconsin’s voting restrictions after 2010 come to mind), because it is universal. Adding in language that prohibits polling place shutdowns in largely populated counties would be very helpful (it would kinda defeat the efficacy of the water provisions in state laws). Additionally, if they put in anti-subversion language, that would also be pretty sensible. It would also be a package that would be easier to explain to voters and doesn’t seem to open up Democrats as much to attacks about trying to “federalize” elections. Republicans would try to blow this up writ large, but I think you could get Murkowski and Romney on this and Manchin might shift a bit on the filibuster as is.

[CSTowle]

The filibuster is like a high school that allows students to walk out of class to go to the bathroom at any time and without asking for permission first. Some students will eventually take advantage of it, using it as an excuse to skip class, smoke in the restrooms, or who knows what.

Fair enough, I agree. The problem for me (to continue the theme) is what do we do when the next school shooter comes along? What defenses are there?

Exactly. If Dems eliminate the filibuster, the GOP upon re-entering government would have the right to legislate without the filibuster from the opposing party exercising veto to stop the discussion coming from floor.

I am totally comfortable with that. That's totally fair, and anyone who calls for eliminating the filibuster thinking "rules for me and not thee" is not being realistic or fair, or democratic.



Take a look at politics in the UK and other parts of the world where you don't have filibuster and yet upon coming to power, Conservative Coalitions nonetheless find themselves checked and hampered to do legislation through a variety of ways.

The filibuster prevents actual politics from being enacted. The actual nature of politics alone is more than a check for all kinds of legislative agendas.



The filibuster wasn't much use in stopping Trump from doing all the harmful things he did during his presidency. Aside from the tax cut (passed via budget reconciliation) Trump didn't try and pass major legislation, so the Senate under McConnell spent its time stacking the court with GOP judges.



The filibuster needs to go. Either we do it or the GOP do it, but either way it has to go and mark my wards within a decade or so, it will be gone.

So the way I see it, it's a race. Either the Dems come out first and get rid of the filibuster, or the GOP will do it. Things would be better if the Dems do it first and go hard and fast.



The point is that the Dems are in a position where they need to eliminate the filibuster. It's a matter of legislative integrity mostly because the GOP is becoming fascist and does not believe in representative democracy anymore.



The filibuster isn't about that. It's a mistake to assume that removing the filibuster will mean that the Dems will be unified and vote as a block for the Dream Basket of Leftist Legislation.

The filibuster simply prevents ordinary politics from taking effect and denying the public a chance to know what the Senate actually stands for and are willing to do.

I suspect plenty of Republicans wouldn't mind Harris as President. They think Biden is more effective and popular, so it's better to be against Harris.

The conservative media has not been able to make Biden see scary.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ishing/619052/

A San Francisco politician is a different story, especially if she's elevated to the White House as the result of Biden's physical and/ or mental decline, which will raise questions about what people in the campaign knew and when.

The scenario you suggest is rather unlikely, but it wouldn't be a bad one for elected Republicans or the conservative media.

It is worth noting that Mitch McConnell declined to end the filibuster when Trump would have preferred it.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...r-trump-678817

There are a few arguments that it's better for Democrats to get rid of the filibuster, even if it makes life easier for future Senate Republicans.

From the Democratic perspective, the good things the party can pass can help would not only help Americans, but help Democrats politically in future elections "See what we've done for you. See what Republicans can take away." It would also mean that when Republicans take back the Senate, they probably won't be able to reverse anything major.

The other argument is that Democrats are the party of federal activism, which is limited by the filibuster. So Republicans aren't likely to want to make radical changes, and can often get what they want through inaction.

On the first bolded, thank you for the honesty.

On the other bolded, good points. Conservative= inaction. Filibuster= inaction. So filibuster favors conservatives. And there's no question it's been abused since the '90s, only getting worse over time. Not having to stand up and actually filibuster just makes things easier. I believe something needs to be done to change that, I just worry that throwing it out will bite us in the ass. Precisely because I feel like conservatives know their back is up against the wall demographically and we're approaching the last stand for white supremacy to be the unquestioned/unchallengeable status quo. They go hard because they need to go hard, will ignore or abuse rules and generally do anything they can to enact their agenda (even if that's to get nothing done). If there are no rules, that's scarier to me.

My question is why didn't his aides, family or friends around him corrected him? Why did they allowed him to make a fool of himself?

You try telling Trump something he doesn't want to hear or might piss him off and see how far that gets you. Short answer, not very far.

I'd say that's true, but probably also some silent resentment (imagine being around an ego that big and petty, how many slights and insults has he heaped upon even those he's loved?) that might allow them to enjoy him making an ass of himself and pretending not to have noticed.

[Tendrin]

Another one for WBE
https://twitter.com/HirshSingh/statu...11151344082964

I’m not afraid to say it, President Trump won in 2020.

Vote for pro-Trump Hirsh Singh on June 8th if you stand with President Trump and want to help us make New Jersey Great Again.

[Tami]

Another one for WBE
https://twitter.com/HirshSingh/statu...11151344082964

I have my sample ballot, and he is in the 3rd column. He isn't even endorsed by the State Republican Organization.

Which reminds me, my name is on the ballot (squee!!) but not for political office. I'm on to be a member of the County Democratic Committee for my town. it's more of a formality than anything, but still, it's fun to see my name at the bottom of the first column of the Democratic ballot (Gov Murphy is at the top of the ballot column).

[Tami]

Mo Brooks posts his Gmail password while ranting about Eric Swalwell subpoena

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) lashed out on Twitter Sunday afternoon when his wife was served with a subpoena for Rep. Eric Swalwell's (D-CA) civil lawsuit. Brooks ranted on Twitter that the subpoena was illegally served because the process server was caught "sneaking into my house and accosting my wife."

In the course of his rant and need to post a screen capture of the penalties of illegally trespassing, Brooks accidentally posted his PIN number and the password to his Gmail account, which are taped under his screen on his laptop.

I saw the image on Twitter, and though you need to blow it up the tape with the written password is right there. He must have used his cell phone to take a picture of the computer instead of simply doing a Screen Capture. he obviously is not computer literate.

If you’re going to put your passwords on a piece of tape below your screen, you might want to refrain from posting photos of it.

[Tendrin]

I have my sample ballot, and he is in the 3rd column. He isn't even endorsed by the State Republican Organization.

Which reminds me, my name is on the ballot (squee!!) but not for political office. I'm on to be a member of the County Democratic Committee for my town. it's more of a formality than anything, but still, it's fun to see my name at the bottom of the first column of the Democratic ballot (Gov Murphy is at the top of the ballot column).

*cheers for Tami*

[CaptainEurope]

Mo Brooks posts his Gmail password while ranting about Eric Swalwell subpoena



I saw the image on Twitter, and though you need to blow it up the tape with the written password is right there. He must have used his cell phone to take a picture of the computer instead of simply doing a Screen Capture. he obviously is not computer literate.

If you’re going to put your passwords on a piece of tape below your screen, you might want to refrain from posting photos of it.

This is also a major security risk. Any cleaning personnel that goes into Brooks' office can access his gmail, and we all know they illegally use gmail for government business when they do not want the messages be subject to FOI requests.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I have my sample ballot, and he is in the 3rd column. He isn't even endorsed by the State Republican Organization.

Which reminds me, my name is on the ballot (squee!!) but not for political office. I'm on to be a member of the County Democratic Committee for my town. it's more of a formality than anything, but still, it's fun to see my name at the bottom of the first column of the Democratic ballot (Gov Murphy is at the top of the ballot column).

Well, congrats to you, Tami! Can I get your autograph after you win that election?

This is also a major security risk. Any cleaning personnel that goes into Brooks' office can access his gmail, and we all know they illegally use gmail for government business when they do not want the messages be subject to FOI requests.

Well, it was common knowledge that Trump used an unsecured smartphone during most of his tenure as president, so it's no surprise other Qpublicans were just as ignorant.

[worstblogever]

Another one for WBE
https://twitter.com/HirshSingh/statu...11151344082964

Already had him on my radar, but thanks.

[worstblogever]

In both 2015, as well as 2016, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" published profiles of Jacqueline Schaffer, a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives who won two terms in office without ever being challenged by a Democrat in both 2012 and 2014. She first gained some notoriety for sponsoring a sex-selective abortion ban (in spite of the practice not existing), and then after co-sponsoring an anti-Sharia Law bill a few months later, decided it wasn’t conservative enough and amended the legislation to include the sex-selective abortion ban again. In her first term in office, she also voted for North Carolina’s rigid Voter ID Law, the “motorcycle safety/anti-abortion” law, and voted to drug test welfare recipients. In her second, she sponsored North Carolina’s first attempt at a “religious freedom” law, HB 348, to allow for the discrimination of LGBTQ citizens based on one’s supposed deeply held faith, and was a co-sponsor of the state’s highly discriminatory HB 2 law. But perhaps her most outrageous moment came after she sponsored HB 465, a bill to stretch the medically unnecessary waiting period for an abortion in North Carolina from 24 to 72 hours, where she advocated for the measure by comparing women’s bodies to real estate. She did not run for re-election in 2016, and decided to resign because of “business responsibilities” she was having trouble staying on top of.


In both 2017, 2018, 2019, as well as 2020, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” presented its original profile of Mississippi State Senator Jenifer Branning, emerging from a 4 candidate Republican primary by touting her involvement in her Pentecostal Church, winning with 43% of the vote, and then facing no Democratic challengers in the general election. She very quickly made an impression upon the state, taking LGBTQ bigotry to a new level by filing HB 1523, a “religious freedom” law that makes North Carolina’s HB 2 look like an invitation to a gay pride parade. Not only would it allow legalized discrimination towards the gay and transgendered communities, but it also stated that marriage should be recognized as the union between one man and one woman, and that sexual relations should be reserved for marriage only (!), and that someone’s gender is limited to whatever it is listed at the time of their birth. In spite of the obvious amount of legal discrimination in the bill, Branning had the unmitigated lack of conscience to claim it wasn’t discriminatory at all:

"It gives protection to those in the state who cannot in a good conscience provide services for a same-sex marriage. I don't think this bill is discriminatory — It takes no rights away from anyone."

When Branning’s bit of extremism was criticized widely online, she deleted her Facebook page rather than answer for what she was trying to do. And of course, after its passage, the bill was almost immediately blocked by the courts, because large portions of it are obviously contradictory to the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. That may have had something to do with the fact that the state tried defending the law with the logic that Christians have a right to challenge the freedoms of gay people. So there’s that.

What kind of bigotry will Jenifer Branning stand against? Will you believe that she voted for a bill to classify attacking law enforcement as a hate crime? You heard that right, people are born gay, but they don’t have rights… but people who choose to be a cop, they do, based off of their jobs.

Anyway, we’re not just going to chalk up Branning’s obsession with LGBTQ rights as our only complaint with her, as she also has already voted to try and block state funding of Planned Parenthood, and for someone who’s so adamant that she’s pro-life, she also voted not just to maintain capital punishment in Mississippi, but allow the state to bring back the electric chair and firing squads as lethal methods of execution. No hypocrisy there, either, no sir. She furthered that disconnect about what “pro-life” mean as she co-sponsored legislation that if passed, would have Mississippi to ban abortion at 15 weeks, and followed that up by voting for a fetal heartbeat bill that would effectively ban abortion a 6 weeks, flying in the face of the Roe v. Wade ruling.

Branning was up for re-election in 2019, but no candidates filed to run against her, guaranteeing that she’ll be in office to continue her social crusade for another four years. She immediately went to work sponsoring a bill that would make it easier for parents to use their “religious beliefs” to opt out of immunizing their children. Branning did this during the Covid-19 pandemic’s early stages, and there’s no way that could have long term effects that could kill anyone. Nope. Not at all.

Now in 2021, Jenifer Branning continues to be a part of the worst legislation you can find, voting for Mississippi’s SB 2536, to ban transgender youth from participating in school sports activities unless it’s of their biological sex at birth, a phenomenon so widespread no Republicans can give examples of kids using it for an athletic advantage when asked to.

2023 cannot come fast enough to give voters another chance to bounce this bigot.

[Tami]

Supreme Court rules against immigrants with temporary status

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that thousands of people living in the U.S. for humanitarian reasons are ineligible to apply to become permanent residents.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that federal immigration law prohibits people who entered the country illegally and now have Temporary Protected Status from seeking “green cards” to remain in the country permanently.

The designation applies to people who come from countries ravaged by war or disaster. It protects them from deportation and allows them to work legally. There are 400,000 people from 12 countries with TPS status.

The outcome in a case involving a couple from El Salvador who have been in the U.S. since the early 1990s turned on whether people who entered the country illegally and were given humanitarian protections were ever “admitted” into the United States under immigration law.

Kagan wrote that they were not. “The TPS program gives foreign nationals nonimmigrant status, but it does not admit them. So the conferral of TPS does not make an unlawful entrant...eligible" for a green card, she wrote.

The House of Representatives already has passed legislation that would make it make possible for TPS recipients to become permanent residents, Kagan noted. The bill faces uncertain prospects in the Senate.

The case pitted the Biden administration against immigrant groups that argued many people who came to the U.S. for humanitarian reasons have lived in the country for many years, given birth to American citizens and put down roots in the U.S.

[worstblogever]

I have my sample ballot, and he is in the 3rd column. He isn't even endorsed by the State Republican Organization.

Which reminds me, my name is on the ballot (squee!!) but not for political office. I'm on to be a member of the County Democratic Committee for my town. it's more of a formality than anything, but still, it's fun to see my name at the bottom of the first column of the Democratic ballot (Gov Murphy is at the top of the ballot column).

Congratulations on that, Tami!