All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

[Mister Mets]

Assuming this is the idea, targeting Biden is symbolic, at best. If he woke up tomorrow and decided he wanted to cut Israel's aid off, he couldn't. The protests would need to pressure Congress.

And I don't know what the strategy is anyway. It doesn't look like protests are moving the needle among the voting public (who could indirectly pressure Congress), but are actively annoying people.

Yeah, the protests are not effective.

A problem for the party is that people are passionate for something that is not popular, even within the party. Ameliorating protestors who want to reward Hamas for endangering Palestinian civilians is likely to upset more swing voters.

It's a tough calculus when the race is so evenly divided.

Either address the bigotry or don't -- but don't waste people's time with transparent deflection from your support of a racist and homophobic political party led by a white nationalist candidate.

If you have a question for me ask it in a non-loaded way, and I'll try to answer.

But I stand by what I said that the term "parents rights movement" is a bit vague, and that I didn't make any claim about Republican bigotry is vague. This should be acknowledged.

We have three different terms here. You shared a 17 minute video by a Youtuber that seems to respond to "parents rights" as a euphemism. As far as I can tell, you haven't actually said where you agree with the video, or why anyone should take it seriously.

That is distinct from a comment another poster made that parents have no rights. That represents a policy view which would be a political loser, but there are some arguments that parents don't have the right to send their child anywhere but public school.

And that itself is different from questions about what I think of the parents rights movement, which I did answer. And I have commented on racist parents as well as racist Republicans.

I don't think I can be neutral but I would make a distinction: I think it would be easier for me to be neutral on this hush money trial (I don't know much of the background and could thus concentrate on the objective evidence) than on a trial about Jan. 6th or election interference. In the latter two, I already have a lot of subjectivity and bias going in, that I won't probably be able to shake off.

One comparison I heard in commentary was with the Boston marathon bomber.

Several of the jurors admit they thought he was guilty, but said that they were open to changing their minds if new evidence presented itself (it did not.)

That is what's needed with Trump. The main concern for prosecutors and defense is people saying the right things, but lying either to the judge or to themselves about whether they can follow the letter of the law even if they don't like Trump.

Would be nice if the ones loudest about not voting for Biden were ever around when it came time for other elections. I never see these "We need to vote 3rd party and dismantle the 2 party system!" people out trying to run for any smaller offices or local ones...its always shooting right for the Oval Office and nothing else.

This is a good point.

There are plenty of jurisdictions where one party dominates, so a third party candidate could make a race interesting.

There's also a qualifications issue. Third-party candidates tend not to have credentials impressive enough for a presidential bid. Robert Kennedy Jr is a lawyer. Cornel West is a public intellectual. Jill Stein is a doctor who served in the equivalent of a town council. Jo Jorgenson is a philosophy professor.

The better long-term strategy would be to run for other offices to build the resume for a presidential bid.

Couple of pretty obvious things there...

Those "Smaller..." offices you mentioned?

Any one of those come with a "Commander In Chief..." as part of holding the office?

Because I'm having a tough time recalling the last time we had a long run of Congress declaring the military actions that the country would be undertaking?

Past that?

Going after the "Smaller..." office means having to aim for running the table to rack up enough wins to so much as even have a shot at amassing enough leverage to make change.

The Presidency?

Just on point to apply pressure to in order to attempt to make changes.

Congress declares war, and determines how money is spent, so there is a lot that third party members can do.

If you'd bother to actually READ what I typed, you'd see that no one, not even America can end centuries of hate those factions have had for each other overnight. What do YOU suggest we do to end genocide cold, like tomorrow? Stop sending weapons to Israel and push hard for peace? Good idea, problem is, Hamas isn't interested in peace and would cause more chaos given the chance. Hell, I doubt Netenyahu wants peace either since the conflict keeps him in power. At Biden is trying to stop the madness as best he can while YOUR party straight up doesn't give a damn and, as far as I know, hasn't offered any solutions.

I suspect many of the "from the river to the sea" people have a deeply wrong understanding of the situation.

It's the same as with those radical climate protesters. Throwing paint or soup at art doesn't do anything positive, it just makes people annoyed and more likely to dismiss the entire movement. They do more damage than help, similar to those who send death threats to people they disagree with. But do they care? Probably not, because they don't really care about the issue, they just want that momentary feeling of doing something radical, then they move to a different issue if this one is not trendy enough anymore.

Meanwhile, foreign powers that often finance these things, either directly or through stuff like Tiktok, are laughing because causing division in western society is exactly what they want.

It does often seem to be about making a statement rather than having any kind of concrete result.

It just occurred to me that the people pushing for ceasefire could also organize to bring attention to ways to send aid to Gaza without it going first to the Hamas fighters using everyone else as human shields.

[Tami]

It's the same as with those radical climate protesters. Throwing paint or soup at art doesn't do anything positive, it just makes people annoyed and more likely to dismiss the entire movement. They do more damage than help, similar to those who send death threats to people they disagree with. But do they care? Probably not, because they don't really care about the issue, they just want that momentary feeling of doing something radical, then they move to a different issue if this one is not trendy enough anymore.

Meanwhile, foreign powers that often finance these things, either directly or through stuff like Tiktok, are laughing because causing division in western society is exactly what they want.

If they are laughing now, they haven't watched much late night US TV Programing. See, we here in the US laugh at ourselves all the time. The right to be divisive (and stupid) is practically written into the US Constitution. Everything that is going on now has some roots in the past or at least some comparable parallels from the past. We have a built in fail safe, or multiple fail safes, mostly in the structure of the country where everything gets checked and balanced to some degree. Even the individual states check and balance each other.

That's not to say that we should be complacent.

[hyped78]

It's the same as with those radical climate protesters. Throwing paint or soup at art doesn't do anything positive, it just makes people annoyed and more likely to dismiss the entire movement. They do more damage than help, similar to those who send death threats to people they disagree with. But do they care? Probably not, because they don't really care about the issue, they just want that momentary feeling of doing something radical, then they move to a different issue if this one is not trendy enough anymore.

Meanwhile, foreign powers that often finance these things, either directly or through stuff like Tiktok, are laughing because causing division in western society is exactly what they want.

+1 to all of that

[Jack Dracula]

If they are laughing now, they haven't watched much late night US TV Programing. See, we here in the US laugh at ourselves all the time. The right to be divisive (and stupid) is practically written into the US Constitution. Everything that is going on now has some roots in the past or at least some comparable parallels from the past. We have a built in fail safe, or multiple fail safes, mostly in the structure of the country where everything gets checked and balanced to some degree. Even the individual states check and balance each other.

That's not to say that we should be complacent.

We do have the right to be decisive which is extremely important in a democratic society, but equally if not more important is that we maintain a unified philosophy of faith in the democratic system. If one segment or party abandons that philosophy we’re in danger of sliding into authoritarianism, which is where the US is right now.

[Tami]

We do have the right to be decisive which is extremely important in a democratic society, but equally if not more important is that we maintain a unified philosophy of faith in the democratic system. If one segment or party abandons that philosophy we’re in danger of sliding into authoritarianism, which is where the US is right now.

In danger only if that side takes full control which is not easy to do. Still, it is a valid issue that we need to be concerned about.

[Hypestyle]

Assuming Trump is in the courtroom, I'd look him straight in the eye, raise my hand and say: “No, your honor, I cannot be impartial towards the defendant because he’s a racist pig whom I’ve hated him since the early 1990’s when he tried to get five innocent men put to death and, as late as 2019, STILL wanted them executed. I cannot be impartial because as president, the defendant, who skipped out on military duty on a lie, mocked and insulted veterans like myself who fought and died for our country. And no, I cannot be impartial because the defendant stirred up an insurrection because he refused to be a man and accept having lost the election in 2020.”

Would I be allowed to say all that? Probably not, but, if I could, I would.

haha.

Yeah, I couldn't serve on that jury for the same basic reasons. There's probably a bunch of situations where I could serve on a jury, but not for Mr. 45. But I do hope that these other trials get to take place and that all the jurors are safe and they can get people who can legitimately compartmentalize and look at things "reasonably" but not sycophantically in his favor. At least, that's my hope. I have the worst expectations for the Miami trial under the judge he appointed. Sheesh.

[Reverse Happy]

House approves Ukraine aid package

https://news.sky.com/story/crucial-6...dlock-13119287

Finally. I'm still peeved that Johnson refused to simply take up the largely-similar Senate version for months, and instead let Ukraine lose strategic towns/infrastructure/lives that it could've otherwise defended. The best comment I've seen is that "Watching and listening to him it was like he'd been deleted and replaced by a completely reprogrammed clone that spoke only obviously true stuff." I'm half-expecting him to drop dead in a few weeks, Death-Note style.

The Senate plans to vote on the bill Tuesday afternoon. Something about cloture and Passover delaying things. I wish it were sooner, even by a day or two. Thankfully the military's logistics are reportedly prepared to deliver within days for some of the stuff, once approved.

Incidentally, one of the four passed bills included another version of the Tiktok ban/forced-sale.

[Mister Mets]

AOC wants the constituents of Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz to thank them for voting against sending aid to Israel.

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1782130231165264296

My brother shared this story with me, saying the horseshoe theory of political insanity is real.

[hyped78]

AOC wants the constituents of Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz to thank them for voting against sending aid to Israel.

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1782130231165264296

My brother shared this story with me, saying the horseshoe theory of political insanity is real.

Strange bedfellows, the far left and the far right... or not

[Kirby101]

AOC wants the constituents of Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz to thank them for voting against sending aid to Israel.

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1782130231165264296

My brother shared this story with me, saying the horseshoe theory of political insanity is real.

That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think? She listed ALL 58 members who voted to not send aid to Israel. Gaetz and MTG were just among them. You make it sound like she singled them out or personally thanked them.

[skyvolt2000]

That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think? She listed ALL 58 members who voted to not send aid to Israel. Gaetz and MTG were just among them. You make it sound like she singled them out or personally thanked them.

And isn't she among the 58 that voted no?

So where is this gotcha that some think is there?

Here is what she actually said

If you support how these folks voted, I can’t emphasize enough how important it is to let them know.

They will be under relentless pressure and attack. It is important to show support - on the inside, it can often feel like there isn’t.

Call, write, post. It makes a difference.

We all know she is going to be the main one along with Omar, Bowman and Lee (PA) that will be getting brunt of the attacks not Gaetz or Greene.

[Kirby101]

No Gotcha. But a misleading post that doesn't say she said this to 58 Congress people, but just singles out these two.

[aja_christopher]

As far as I can tell, you haven't actually said where you agree with the video, or why anyone should take it seriously.

Because Republicans are systemically dismantaling the rights of non-white, non-hetero, non-Christian American citizens in an effort to effort to promote a white Christian nationalist government.

The "Parents Rights Movement" is only one such organization out of many that promotes said goal -- just as that was only one video out of many documenting Republican racism and trans/homophobia.

History implies you don't have a problem with said agenda -- but others do and you're just going to have to live with the fact that so long as you support an openly white nationalist party, you are going to be challenged on said basis.

It doesn't matter what you might say about Republican racism and bigotry on these forums if you still support it at the ballot box.

And in truth you generally just say "that's terrible" and move on to writing deflective posts telling others they need to ask you questions instead of just addressing the topic objectively and in-depth.



Which is your choice -- but don't act is if you are being treated unfairly when the real victims are the people losing their rights due to Republican fascism and bigotry.

If you can spend six months explaining why you don't have the time to address all of the racism and bigotry in question then you can certainly spend the same amount of time actually addressing it.

And if you can spend months falsely claiming Democrats support "open borders" then you can objectively spend the same amount of time analyzing Republican illegal and unethical actions which only exacerbate the problem.

As well as the overtly racist targeting of black and brown immigrants -- whether it's Trump or otherwise.

Asking you "questions" won't solve anything -- the real solution to this problem was already stated at the beginning of the thread.

It seems in general we're looking for different things here. You're looking for affirmation of your political views, so you want people to express the same conclusions you do.

This needs to be addressed as it is a complete falsehood and prevents any real dialogue -- a diversity of opinions is more than welcome and is generally beneficial in any civil society.

But if you are going to constantly claim the moral high ground in so many conversations then you damn well sure better be able to explain how that can be done while supporting a party you know engages in racism and bigotry.

We can leave it there though as this isn't an argument so much as an observation -- if you truly don't see these things as problems within the conservative/Republican party then it is what it is.

The videos are posted to prove there is nothing "vague" about Republican bigotry and fascism -- no one should have to tell any grown adult why these things are wrong and why it is wrong to support these behaviors in a democracy.

[Mister Mets]

And isn't she among the 58 that voted no?

So where is this gotcha that some think is there?

Here is what she actually said



We all know she is going to be the main one along with Omar, Bowman and Lee (PA) that will be getting brunt of the attacks not Gaetz or Greene.

Is Summer Lee really that well-known?

In this case, the brunt of the attacks would come from the establishment not from the far right.

That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think? She listed ALL 58 members who voted to not send aid to Israel. Gaetz and MTG were just among them. You make it sound like she singled them out or personally thanked them.

I didn't suggest they were the only three (and linked to the tweet with the chart), but if someone's part of a small group of members of the house (2/15 members voted for it) including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz, that would suggest they may be on the wrong side.

The House is typically less disciplined than the Senate, since it includes people without the talent or appeal to centrists to win statewide office, so you're going to have more people voting for crazy things in the House of Representatives.

The other names don't seem great either. I don't think you guys are fans of Zinke (kicked out of the Trump administration for corruption), Massie, Gosar or Boebert. Obviously as a centrist Republican, I'm not going to like the most undisciplined Democratic members of Congress.

This seems to be a vote shared by the most unreasonable members of Congress from both parties.

[CaptainEurope]

That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think? She listed ALL 58 members who voted to not send aid to Israel. Gaetz and MTG were just among them. You make it sound like she singled them out or personally thanked them.

Insincerely, Thomas Mets