All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[TheInvisibleMan]

cable news was around then, Twitter was just getting going, definitely not the snakepit it is now though

[ZombieHavoc]

cable news was around then, Twitter was just getting going, definitely not the snakepit it is now though

Well, PaulBullion was referring to HW Bush, regarding the cable news/twitter thing.

Plus, was Twitter around when W Bush was still in office? I have no idea.

Edit: According to Wiki, Twitter was created in 2006. Weird.

[ZombieHavoc]

Also, as much as I love a good protest, I feel like it would really bum Milo Y. out if no one came to protest Free Speech Week at Berkeley.

That seems like the best option. That dude has to be banking on a big spectacle. His reputation, such that it is, pretty much depends on it.

[Mister Mets]

‘It’s gonna end with concentration camps’: Alt-right executive boasts of a future Europe with Hitler on their money



But sure, keep complaining about Anitfa and punched Nazis.

The guy's an idiot, but there isn't a simple solution.

Changing the rule of law to deal with him would open up similar changes to people you agree with (it requires giving greater authority to the Trump/ Sessions justice department, as well as to the 30+ Republican governors and Republican-controlled state legislatures.)

I wish people who are Savvy like Ezra klein would actually look at Polling on Policy and get out of their bubbles.

This is why People don't fight hard for Democrats.
When is the right time to bring up Single Payer?

When Democrats control Government? Nope. We must get Bipartisanship with the GOP, there are good people over there..
When Republicans control Government? Nope. We can't talk about it until we get power.
During and Election? No, we have to win on the issues and values. We can't talk about Single Payer until we have power.
When over 60% of the American public want it? Nope, American doesn't really want it, even though they say they do.

So basically it's never a good time to talk about improving the lives of Americans.

I think Klein and others look at polling at single payer. It collapses when voters are told of the specifics, such as the costs.

In addition, a commentator's obligation would be to support the policy on the merits. If they think it's bad policy, it shouldn't matter if it's popular.

[PaulBullion]

cable news was around then, Twitter was just getting going, definitely not the snakepit it is now though

CNN was just getting big under George HW Bush. It was during his Gulf War that they started reaching a wider audience. There was no twitter then. We're talking early 90s... basically mostly scientists on the Internet still.

[Mister Mets]

I thought I saw a lot of them trying not to laugh.

TRUMP WAS LAUGHED AT BY WORLD LEADERS FOR DISSING SOCIALISM
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-was-la...cialism-667785

We can largely thank Fox News for the fear of socialism.

I think we can blame Stalin more for that one.

Every time I hear 'All Lives Matter' and 'But What About Black On Black Crime", I just want to sigh.

As a smart person once said, "The human mind is not a rational thing. It is a rationalizing thing."

While there are problems with policing, in terms of people killed, "black on black crime" is a much bigger problem. If there is the perception that this is ignored (as when commentary on the subject reads the same as it would in a world in which young black men were more likely to be killed by white police officers than by other young black men), it results in a loss of moral authority.

[TheInvisibleMan]

CNN was just getting big under George HW Bush. It was during his Gulf War that they started reaching a wider audience. There was no twitter then. We're talking early 90s... basically mostly scientists on the Internet still.

HW, not W

my mistake then

[kmeyers]

that goes back to the 50s, the government married communism/socialism

the Reagan administration fanned that flame in the 80s

I meant in recent history/post cold war era. I also meant Democratic socialism and how any mention of the word socialism is immediately vilified by some.

[PaulBullion]

While there are problems with policing, in terms of people killed, "black on black crime" is a much bigger problem.

[Kevinroc]

While there are problems with policing, in terms of people killed, "black on black crime" is a much bigger problem.

This part is not true. It's said to make black people seem more violent/aggressive than other groups.

[BeastieRunner]

While there are problems with policing, in terms of people killed, "black on black crime" is a much bigger problem. If there is the perception that this is ignored (as when commentary on the subject reads the same as it would in a world in which young black men were more likely to be killed by white police officers than by other young black men), it results in a loss of moral authority.

Since 1980, 53% of gang crimes are white gangs against white gangs.

83% of white people killed every year are killed by other whites. In 2011, there were more cases of whites killing whites than there were of blacks killing blacks.

ALSO! White people commit more of the most violent crimes than ANY OTHER GROUP.

Sure you can give the disproportionate argument, which would mean that because of the raw numbers, if we had a choice between eliminating white on white or black on black crime, eliminating white on white crime would pay far greater dividends.

The FBI report used is the latest, 2013. New one is due out next year.

Also, this ... vvv

[BeastieRunner]

Also, the White House began throwing Manafort under the bus today.

And ...

Mueller Seeks White House Documents Related to Trump’s Actions as President.

Another potential Mueller honey pot: Spicer's notebooks.

What's locked in Trump's safe? Mueller may easily find out now.

I hope Fox has Geraldo cover this story.

[JBatmanFan05]

New sanctions on NK (and their enablers):
Trump announces new economic sanctions targeting North Korea over nuclear program

NEW YORK -- President Trump announced an executive order Thursday to grant additional authority to the Treasury Department to enforce economic sanctions on North Korea and foreign companies and individuals that do business with the rogue nation in Northeast Asia.

The president also said that Chinese President Xi Jinping had ordered Chinese banks to cease conducting business with North Korean entities. Trump called the move "very bold" and "somewhat unexpected," and he praised Xi.

“North Korea’s nuclear program is a grave threat to peace and security in our world, and it is unacceptable that others financially support this criminal, rogue regime," Trump said in brief public remarks during a meeting with the leaders of South Korea and Japan to discuss strategy to confront Pyongyang over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

[BeastieRunner]

New sanctions on NK (and their enablers):
Trump announces new economic sanctions targeting North Korea over nuclear program

China can cut off the DPRK's internet easily. So can South Korea. That would probably do more than sanctions.

[TheDarman]

That's very admirable. Part of the reason I voted for Trump was how poorly and unfairly Bush (not HW) was treated by the media and left. And Barack did some good things, and deserves all the credit for taking down Bin Laden.

I think that George W. Bush largely was let down by his own administration more than anything else. There are a lot of things that have come out about what Cheney had done to influence Bush. I don't particularly think W. was as strong as his dad was in office. I think that H.W. understood what he wanted to do and had a good head on his shoulders. It's admirable, at least I think, that W. understood there were areas he needed help and got veterans from his dad's and Reagan's administrations. Unfortunately, I happen to believe he picked the wrong guys (aside from Colin Powell; love that guy).

It was a reference to you. I skimmed through some of your earlier posts, and didn't have an immediate sense of your exact political beliefs, which is kind of refreshing, even if your last post did remove some of the ambiguity.

Sorry, I thought it was important, given the context of the discussion, to at least contextualize my own viewpoints more broadly. I still don't really feel like I neatly fit in anywhere (I kind of hate calling myself a fiscal moderate, for example, because that means very different things to different people and I typically just use it as a catch-all), which is kind of the way I like it and why I particularly appreciated the earlier comment.

The guy's an idiot, but there isn't a simple solution.

Changing the rule of law to deal with him would open up similar changes to people you agree with (it requires giving greater authority to the Trump/ Sessions justice department, as well as to the 30+ Republican governors and Republican-controlled state legislatures.)

This is actually a very nice point that I think I missed as well. Of course, I think that it would be very difficult to create new laws that infringe, even a little bit, on the First Amendment. It is very easy for rights infringements to turn into slippery slopes. That can be very dangerous--particularly if the political opposition is in power at the moment. I think that a good line to draw is inciting violence and creating mass public hysteria. Past that, I think we benefit more than we hurt from freer expression.

I think Klein and others look at polling at single payer. It collapses when voters are told of the specifics, such as the costs.

In addition, a commentator's obligation would be to support the policy on the merits. If they think it's bad policy, it shouldn't matter if it's popular.

Yeah, I've noticed this as well. I also think that the highest polling I've actually seen for single payer was for the Democratic Party itself, where the popularity of the proposal was at 61%, whereas with the general public it was around 43% and less for Republicans (for obvious reasons). It's not inherently unpopular--just less popular than the ACA, even in its current state, is. It also makes sense why Democrats would be signing onto a single payer bill if they plan on running in 2020. It's a good way to put your name on something without any of the political repercussions of actually passing it. I just think that they need to be careful--symbolic bills can get you into trouble, just ask the current Republican party.

I also think that I've made my concerns about single payer clear earlier in this thread. Needless to say, I'm dubious about the prospect of it being the best way to go. Indeed, I think a lot of people that are currently supportive of the proposal are as well but that's politics for you.

I think we can blame Stalin more for that one.

I think it is a combination of the two. Stalin's example made it incredibly easy to conflate authoritarian ideas with socialist ideas. The two are more mutually exclusive than they aren't but it is understandable why that view would be propagated throughout the American populace, especially at the time. The further we get away from that, though, the less and less younger people accept "socialism" as a dirty word. I'd just caution most people that are eager to get away from that time that it doesn't necessarily make it a good idea either.

While there are problems with policing, in terms of people killed, "black on black crime" is a much bigger problem. If there is the perception that this is ignored (as when commentary on the subject reads the same as it would in a world in which young black men were more likely to be killed by white police officers than by other young black men), it results in a loss of moral authority.

In terms of loss of life, I'm not sure that that is entirely accurate (I'd have to look at the stats again). However, that doesn't mean it isn't a problem because it certainly is, as is any loss of life. Of course, I think "black on black crime" is a misnomer when it really is motivated mostly by poverty and lack of opportunity. As Tendrin pointed out earlier, accounting for poverty, predominantly black neighborhoods commit crimes at around the same rate as predominantly white neighborhoods. These things shouldn't be ignored but I do think that the reason there is such a focus on police officers and the way they enforce the law is because there is actually more the government can easily do to correct this problem. Above all else, police officers are servants of the public. The fact that some people feel unsafe in the presence of people whose job it is to protect them is tragic. It isn't as tragic that people feel unsafe in the presence of a criminal. I think that that is the moral difference between the issues.