All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Tami]

Warren has taken Bernie’s thunder. He sounds like a broken record, no one pay attention to him nor took him serious in that debate.

I overheard two college students talking about the debates. Neither watched and both support Bernie.

[numberthirty]

Question for the thread.

Whats with the large number of conservative posters on social media ? I see tons of right wingers slinging **** on YT comments, Twitter etc. Yet never in a more legitimate forum where actual debate can be had ?

That's all "Tee Ball..." compared to the folks who call in on C-Span.

[numberthirty]

You can only realistically accomplish so much when you try to change things from within. Knowing that the system is resistant to reform or reformers.

A D.A. that is seen as Anti-Police by the Police themselves doesn't get to stay as D.A. So Harris has pushed reformist policies while refusing to do anything that would piss off
Police or the Police Union directly.

None of that explains Herbalife.

Sometimes, it's the person.

[numberthirty]

Bernie gets "bad blood" because all his supporters do is attack other Democrats while supporting a candidate who prefers not to even identify as a Democrat -- nearly every post you (or thirty) has made has been about attacking Hillary, Biden, Harris, or Beto, and what comes around goes around.

Don't blame "spite" for people disliking Sanders supporters -- you brought it on yourselves in the last election, and you're repeating the same behavior today.

From a more neutral point of view, Sanders lost the last nomination and he's in the position of losing again -- dragging down other candidates while yours if far from a sure thing does nothing to improve the chances of Democratic success in the next election and in fact is a direct hindrance to said success, just as it was last presidential election.

To put this in simple terms...

You don't get to make almost nothing like an attempt to reach out to a group of voters who don't support you, and then turn around and blame them when they won't back you.

As for "All His Supporters Do...", it's provably not the case.

Knight has sung the praises of Warren. I have said Warren is close enough to perfect for me. Never mind that I just pointed out that Biden coming out in front of the Obama administration on marriage equality.

I'm fine with the actual differences. I don't really care for the "Has Nothing To Do With Actual Reality..." scenarios that some folks cook up.

[worstblogever]

I just blocked a Bernie supporter on social media for harassing me because I shared memes about Warren and Harris. Like... that's it. It prompted a "THIS IS HOW TRUMP ENDS UP WINNING IN 2020" freak-out that included a lot of sexism about how "some woman can't beat Trump" dismissal of Democratic women, as well as the hypocrisy of referring to Sen. Warren with the same Native American slur that Trump does.

That last part was the "you're done" moment with that individual for me. And this wasn't a bot, I have met this person before.

Again, I like Sanders' policies, I did, and continue to want to like Sanders, but his fan club is seriously problematic to him. He had an alright night last night, not as good as Kamala, but he definitely didn't throw up on himself like Biden, Yang, or Williamson.

[Mister Mets]

Andrew Sullivan discusses his objections to Democrats' immigration policy, or lack thereof.

Yesterday was a sign of real bipartisan progress. The House passed a Senate bill to spend $4.6 billion to relieve the humanitarian crisis and tackle some of the structural inadequacies of the current failed system. The left wing of the Democratic caucus wanted to insist on various restrictions on the use of the $4.6 billion, primarily to ensure that none of it is earmarked (God forbid) for enforcement of the law. The problem with waging a longer fight would be that Congress would break for its July 4 recess having done nothing to help. Pelosi put children before politics, and it’s hard not to admire her humane pragmatism.

So it’s a start. What’s next? The good news is that the Democrats are finally beginning to announce policy plans that offer some solid ideas. A new bill for an overhaul of the entire system called the Northern Triangle and Border Stabilization Act has been introduced in the House. It proposes increased U.S. aid to Central American countries, to tackle the problem at its roots; a big investment in border facilities to ensure far more humane treatment of asylum seekers; a much stricter monitoring system to keep track of them after processing to make sure they turn up for their court hearings; many more immigration judges to reduce the massive backlog of cases; and it allows for asylum claims to be made in home countries, rather than at the border.

These are all good ideas and certainly worth trying. But what they don’t address is the larger problem of how to reduce levels of mass immigration. The Democrats want to raise the cap on refugees from Central America to 100,000 a year and propose no tightening of asylum law. But it’s the asylum law that needs to change. Since 2014, there has been a 240 percent increase in asylum cases. As Fareed Zakaria has pointed out, the number of asylum cases from Honduras, Guatemala, and Venezuela has soared at the same time as the crime rate in those countries was being cut in half.

Take the tragic tale of Oscar Ramirez and his young daughter Valeria, the father and daughter captured in death in that heartbreaking photograph. Ramirez’s widow explained to the Washington Post why her husband wanted to move to America: He wanted “a better future for their girl.” This is an admirable goal, but it is classic economic immigration, and it would appear, based on what we know, that it has absolutely nothing to do with asylum. Here again is the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services definition: “Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.”

But somehow the courts have decided that you qualify for asylum if there is simply widespread crime or violence where you live, and Ramirez was also going to use that argument as well. A government need not persecute you; you just have to experience an unsafe environment that your government is failing to suppress. This so expands the idea of asylum, in my view, as to render it meaningless.

Courts have also expanded asylum to include domestic violence, determining that women in abusive relationships are a “particular social group” and thereby qualify. In other words, every woman on the planet who has experienced domestic abuse can now come to America and claim asylum. Also everyone on the planet who doesn’t live in a stable, orderly, low-crime society. Literally billions of human beings now have the right to asylum in America. As climate change worsens, more will rush to claim it. All they have to do is show up.

Last month alone, 144,000 people were detained at the border making an asylum claim. This year, about a million Central Americans will have relocated to the U.S. on those grounds. To add to this, a big majority of the candidates in the Democratic debates also want to remove the grounds for detention at all, by repealing the 1929 law that made illegal entry a criminal offense and turning it into a civil one. And almost all of them said that if illegal immigrants do not commit a crime once they’re in the U.S., they should be allowed to become citizens.

How, I ask, is that not practically open borders? The answer I usually get is that all these millions will have to, at some point, go to court hearings and have their asylum cases adjudicated. The trouble with that argument is that only 44 percent actually turn up for their hearings; and those who do show up and whose claims nonetheless fail can simply walk out of the court and know they probably won’t be deported in the foreseeable future.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement forcibly removed 256,086 people in 2018, 57 percent of whom had committed crimes since they arrived in the U.S. So that’s an annual removal rate of 2 percent of the total undocumented population of around 12 million. That means that for 98 percent of undocumented aliens, in any given year, no consequences will follow for crossing the border without papers. At the debates this week, many Democratic candidates argued that the 43 percent of deportees who had no criminal record in America should not have been expelled at all and been put instead on a path to citizenship. So that would reduce the annual removal rate of illegal immigrants to a little more than 1 percent per year. In terms of enforcement of the immigration laws, this is a joke. It renders the distinction between a citizen and a noncitizen close to meaningless.

My concerns on immigration are much more likely to come from what I read and hear from critics of Trump than from his supporters.

[numberthirty]

I overheard two college students talking about the debates. Neither watched and both support Bernie.

While it's just a couple of kids, I wouldn't discount youth supporting Sanders could have.

[aja_christopher]

To put this in simple terms...

You don't get to make almost nothing like an attempt to reach out to a group of voters who don't support you, and then turn around and blame them when they won't back you.

I didn't say anything about you not supporting them -- I said constantly insulting them and then expecting people to respect your candidate (who doesn't even want to be called a Democrat) is where the problem lies, not in Sanders himself.

You constantly insult Harris, Beto, Biden, Hillary and nearly every other Democrat who doesn't meet your purity test -- it does nothing to help the party as a whole, especially when all you do is complain about "Democrats" just because most of said Democrats don't support your chosen candidate(s).

And you don't get to not vote for the one candidate who stood between Trump and the presidency and then sit there and try to complain about how others are the problem -- you didn't owe Hillary anything, but it's poor choices like that that lead to packed Supreme Courts and children being separated from their families.

[The Overlord]

Bernie gets "bad blood" because all his supporters do is attack other Democrats while supporting a candidate who prefers not to even identify as a Democrat -- nearly every post you (or thirty) has made has been about attacking Hillary, Biden, Harris, or Beto, and what comes around goes around.

Don't blame "spite" for people disliking Sanders supporters -- you brought it on yourselves in the last election, and you're repeating the same behavior today.

From a more neutral point of view, Sanders lost the last nomination and he's in the position of losing again -- dragging down other candidates while yours if far from a sure thing does nothing to improve the chances of Democratic success in the next election and in fact is a direct hindrance to said success, just as it was last presidential election.

Except I think a lot of people want a Democratic party that is actually a left-wing party, not a center-right party and the Democrats as a center-right party is what Bill Clinton turned the Dems into in the 90s and its what Hillary Clinton would have maintained if she was elected in 2016 and its obviously what Joe Biden would do if he was elected President.

That being said, even though Bernie is my first choice, Warren would be my second choice, I think what is important is to make the Democrats an actual left-wing party, not moderate 70s era Republicans.

Do you think the Democratic party should be a real left-wing party or a center-right party? Because to me, that is the big question here, are we going to just defeat Trump to defeat the things that created Trumpism in the first place? Just trying to reset the clock back before Trump became President, means you are not addressing the root causes here. America needs an actual left-wing party to address the problems that created Trumpism and someone like Biden is not up to the task.

[numberthirty]

I didn't say anything about you not supporting them -- I said constantly insulting them and then expecting people to respect your candidate (who doesn't even want to be called a Democrat) is where the problem lies, not in Sanders himself.

You constantly insult Harris, Beto, Biden, Hillary and nearly every other Democrat who doesn't meet your purity test -- it does nothing to help the party as a whole, especially when all you do is complain about "Democrats" just because most of said Democrats don't support your chosen candidate.

And you don't get to not vote for the one candidate who stood between Trump and the presidency and then sit there and try to complain about how others are the problem -- you didn't owe Hillary anything, but it's poor choices like that that lead to packed Supreme Courts and children being separated from their families.

First off, I've never "Insulted..." anyone.

If I say Herbalife is an issue for Harris, it is about what she has actually done. It's not an insult. If someone intends to run on their political record, it's not an "Insult..." to talk about it.

Meanwhile, ask yourself how many times Sanders' hair style has actually been insulted in this thread. Something that has exactly "Zero..." to do with actual politics.

As for Biden, do you have examples of me doing anything like whatever you believe was an "Insult..."?

I'm honestly interested.

[numberthirty]

Except I think a lot of people want a Democratic party that is actually a left-wing party, not a center-right party and the Democrats as a center-right party is what Bill Clinton turned the Dems into in the 90s and its what Hillary Clinton would have maintained if she was elected in 2016 and its obviously what Joe Biden would do if he was elected President.

That being said, even though Bernie is my first choice, Warren would be my second choice, I think what is important is to make the Democrats an actual left-wing party, not moderate 70s era Republicans.

Do you think the Democratic party should be a real left-wing party or a center-right party? Because to me, that is the big question here, are we going to just defeat Trump to defeat the things that created Trumpism in the first place? Just trying to reset the clock back before Trump became President, means you are not addressing the root causes here. America needs an actual left-wing party to address the problems that created Trumpism and someone like Biden is not up to the task.

At this point, a functionally "Center-Left" Party would even be a seriously worthwhile improvement.

That said, it's hard to deny that the movement in that direction(someone like AOC) feels like it is happening, in part, because of Sanders' previous run.

[aja_christopher]

Except I think a lot of people want a Democratic party that is actually a left-wing party, not a center-right party and the Democrats as a center-right party is what Bill Clinton turned the Dems into in the 90s and its what Hillary Clinton would have maintained if she was elected in 2016 and its obviously what Joe Biden would do if he was elected President.

A lot of people here "think" a lot of things but the fact is that moderate Democrats -- like Obama and Clinton -- have been highly successful in the past.

It's fine if you want to see change in the Democratic party but you don't have to burn down everything that came before in the process, especially when it has been shown to win elections (and re-elections) in previous political contests.

The real problem lies in the fact that people on the "left" are so quick to complain but won't get out there and vote like the Republicans do -- if the "left" had stepped up in the midterms back when Obama was president and kept control of the House and the Senate then maybe I'd believe people really want the "change" they keep saying they want to see.

Even in the recent midterms, it wasn't progressives that won the day, it was moderates, so it doesn't make sense to keep attacking a winning formula just because you might not agree with it, especially since general elections also depend on winning over independent (and moderate) voters.

----
"Far from being an extinct political species, moderates matter more than ever. Strong partisans of either stripe were a minority in our poll — a potential sign that the nation may have hit “peak polarization” and is now on its way to a more rational equilibrium.

A plurality of our respondents — 44 percent — called themselves “moderate,” versus 24 percent liberal and 32 percent conservative. Independents are overwhelming moderate (62 percent), potentially an exceptionally important as we look ahead to 2020."

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...ically-extinct

-----
"Given a choice, 54% of rank-and-file Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer that their party move closer to the center, and 41% would rather it shift further left. At the same time, rank-and-file Republicans and Republican-leaning independents favor a shift to the right for their party, as 57% say they would prefer it to be more conservative, and 37% say more moderate."

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245462/...servative.aspx

[aja_christopher]

First off, I've never "Insulted..." anyone.

It doesn't matter 30 -- you're not going to change and I'm not going to bother.

Edit: Change "insulting" to "attacking" if it makes you feel better.

[Theleviathan]

A lot of people here "think" a lot of things but the fact is that moderate Democrats -- like Obama and Clinton -- have been highly successful in the past.

It's fine if you want to see change in the Democratic party but you don't have to burn down everything that came before in the process, especially when it has been shown to win elections (and re-elections) in previous political contests.

The real problem lies in the fact that people on the "left" are so quick to complain but won't get out there and vote like the Republicans do -- if the "left" had stepped up in the midterms back when Obama was president and kept control of the House and the Senate then maybe I'd believe people really want the "change" they keep saying they want to see.

Even in the recent midterms, it wasn't progressives that won the day, it was moderates, so it doesn't make sense to keep attacking a winning formula just because you might not agree with it, especially since general elections also depend on winning over independent (and moderate) voters.

----
"Far from being an extinct political species, moderates matter more than ever. Strong partisans of either stripe were a minority in our poll — a potential sign that the nation may have hit “peak polarization” and is now on its way to a more rational equilibrium.

A plurality of our respondents — 44 percent — called themselves “moderate,” versus 24 percent liberal and 32 percent conservative. Independents are overwhelming moderate (62 percent), potentially an exceptionally important as we look ahead to 2020."

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...ically-extinct

-----
"Given a choice, 54% of rank-and-file Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer that their party move closer to the center, and 41% would rather it shift further left. At the same time, rank-and-file Republicans and Republican-leaning independents favor a shift to the right for their party, as 57% say they would prefer it to be more conservative, and 37% say more moderate."

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245462/...servative.aspx

I think your points are very well taken.

I'd add to them that I don't think you move a party all the way in any one direction with a single election. I think moving left is already happening and it's a mistake to think who you nominate is somehow going to be crossing the finish line. Hell, it may not even be a notable step. The process is more important than the outcome.

The aspirations of moving can take hold and make meaningful movement over time, but while you're in that process it may be wise to win along the way too. Sometimes that means you can't move the needle as much as you'd personally want, but you take the advances and do the smart thing. (Read: vote in whatever way gets Republicans defeated)

[The Overlord]

A lot of people here "think" a lot of things but the fact is that moderate Democrats -- like Obama and Clinton -- have been highly successful in the past.

It's fine if you want to see change in the Democratic party but you don't have to burn down everything that came before in the process, especially when it has been shown to win elections (and re-elections) in the past.

The real problem lies in the fact that people on the "left" are so quick to complain but won't get out there and vote like the Republicans do -- if the "left" had stepped up in the midterms back when Obama was president and kept control of the House and the Senate then maybe I'd believe people really want the "change" they keep saying they want.

Even in the midterms, it wasn't progressives that won the day, it was moderates, so it doesn't make sense to keep attacking a winning formula just because you might not agree with it, especially since general elections also depend on winning over independent (and moderate) voters.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245462/...servative.aspx

Except if there were no problems with the policies ''Moderate Democrats'' put forward, then Trump would not be President.

The economic project Bill Clinton put forward in the 90s, deregulation, trade agreements that benefit corporations, etc is what Trump ran against and he won. When Trump railed against NAFTA, what did Hillary Clinton do? Did she defend NAFTA? Did she criticize it and offer her own way to improve things? Or did she just ceed that ground to Trump? Clinton lost the blue wall states because she could not counter Trump's criticism of NAFTA.

Can you answer me this question, why would the policies of a moderate like Joe Biden be better than those of a left winger like Warren or Sanders? Can you defend these ''moderates'' on a policy level?

To me saying these moderate democrat policies, seems to ignore the damage they have caused in terms of growing the wage gap. Its easier for Trump to rail against immigrants when neoliberal economic policies have weakened the middle class, it would be harder to do that if we had actual left-wing policies designed to lessen that gap, not widen it. Heck guys like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden are ones who brought us the 1994 crime bill that saw a massive increase in terms of incarceration rates for African Americans, is that a policy that has aged well?

I think your points are very well taken.

I'd add to them that I don't think you move a party all the way in any one direction with a single election. I think moving left is already happening and it's a mistake to think who you nominate is somehow going to be crossing the finish line. Hell, it may not even be a notable step. The process is more important than the outcome.

The aspirations of moving can take hold and make meaningful movement over time, but while you're in that process it may be wise to win along the way too. Sometimes that means you can't move the needle as much as you'd personally want, but you take the advances and do the smart thing. (Read: vote in whatever way gets Republicans defeated)

Except is someone like Joe Biden going to move things forward or is he going to try to recreate the Democratic party of the 90s? I think it's fair to ask who in this race wants to move things forward and who wants to stay in the past (I would say Biden does not want to move things forward).