The Ultimate 2020 Election / Politics / General News Thread

[vector2]

I agree with you. All states should expand Medicaid. The poor in our society deserve a safety net for healthcare along with basic allowances for food, clothing, etc.

Vector 2 is simply wrong when he claims I want to abolish our safety nets for the poorest among us.

10 bucks says from the local to state to federal level and across all three branches you have voted for or supported people who have opposed the ACA Medicaid expansion.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[vector2]

Trump Says He’ll Veto Defense Bill If Confederate-Named Military Bases Are Renamed

The GOP-led Senate Armed Services Committee approved a measure to change the names last month.

www.google.com

Good gawd, imagine being so racist that you'd veto the bill that funds the military each year even if it passed a dem house and repub senate....all because you want to make sure bases continue to be named after other racist people who committed treason.

 

[Lawpy]

Trump Says He’ll Veto Defense Bill If Confederate-Named Military Bases Are Renamed

The GOP-led Senate Armed Services Committee approved a measure to change the names last month.

www.google.com

Good gawd, imagine being so racist that you'd veto the bill that funds the military each year even if it passed a dem house and repub senate....all because you want to make sure bases continue to be named after other racist people who committed treason.

At least Mississippi voted to change state flag!

Also FYI for anyone on here: use this to remove AMP stuff: AmputatorBot: Remove AMP from your URLs

I use this a lot cause i don't like Google tracking me and don't like reading news on Google platform

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Trump Says He’ll Veto Defense Bill If Confederate-Named Military Bases Are Renamed

The GOP-led Senate Armed Services Committee approved a measure to change the names last month.

www.google.com

Good gawd, imagine being so racist that you'd veto the bill that funds the military each year even if it passed a dem house and repub senate....all because you want to make sure bases continue to be named after other racist people who committed treason.

What kills me is it came out of committee almost unanimously. It's not like this was a close vote.

 

[Southpaw]

What kills me is it came out of committee almost unanimously. It's not like this was a close vote.

pretty par for the course if you ask me. The dude just shouldn’t be our president. Any responsible adult 2020.

 

[BLADEMDA]

10 bucks says from the local to state to federal level and across all three branches you have voted for or supported people who have opposed the ACA Medicaid expansion.

I am a conservative voter. I vote GOP most of the time. But, that doesn’t mean I support every issue and every item on the platform. In fact, many voters disagree on issues with those they end up voting for. This is how the GOP gets the message over time that their voters want to support a social safety net. Heck, even the ACA has its merits which is why the GOP failed to eradicate it.

One last thing is the entire country has shifted its view on the ACA over the past 4 years. Now, most understand and agree that all citizens need basic healthcare.

 

[epidural man]

How is it we have a thread titled "General News Thread" and no one mentions the recent book " Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties"?

To be fair, I haven't read it - but I listened to a 3 hour interview with the author - it is quit shocking.

I'll definitely read it. You should check out the interview though.

 

[vector2]

I am a conservative voter. I vote GOP most of the time. But, that doesn’t mean I support every issue and every item on the platform. In fact, many voters disagree on issues with those they end up voting for. This is how the GOP gets the message over time that their voters want to support a social safety net. Heck, even the ACA has its merits which is why the GOP failed to eradicate it.

One last thing is the entire country has shifted its view on the ACA over the past 4 years. Now, most understand and agree that all citizens need basic healthcare.

You may hold that personal opinion about a government social safety net, but would it be fair to say that to some third party observer there really isn’t any evidence of you holding that opinion other than just taking your word for it?

For example, I will tell you that I am generally supportive of 2A. And I think a lot of people who only know me by my liberal leaning posts would think that is laughable and that I’m full of sht. They’d ask my voting record and it would be be close to a 0 NRA rating. But as far as evidence, I’ve owned firearms for almost 20 years. I currently own a Bushmaster M4 and a Romanian AK. I’ve put my money where my mouth is as far as exercising my 2A right, so when I tell you I generally support 2A my words don’t ring totally hollow.


More broadly though, this is one of the biggest problems with the two-party system. There is no room for those that are very far left, very far right, or those that want to pick and choose between some liberal and some conservative policies.

 

[BLADEMDA]

You may hold that personal opinion about a government social safety net, but would it be fair to say that to some third party observer there really isn’t any evidence of you holding that opinion other than just taking your word for it?

For example, I will tell you that I am generally supportive of 2A. And I think a lot of people who only know me by my liberal leaning posts would think that is laughable and that I’m full of sht. They’d ask my voting record and it would be be close to a 0 NRA rating. But as far as evidence, I’ve owned firearms for almost 20 years. I currently own a Bushmaster M4 and a Romanian AK. I’ve put my money where my mouth is as far as exercising my 2A right, so when I tell you I generally support 2A my words don’t ring totally hollow.


More broadly though, this is one of the biggest problems with the two-party system. There is no room for those that are very far left, very far right, or those that want to pick and choose between some liberal and some conservative policies.

We are stuck with a 2 party system that is highly polarized. In fact, it seems with each election cycle the gap widens between the parties. That means we must choose the lesser of 2 evils when voting for a candidate.

For PGG there may be 1 or 2 issues which sways his vote. I don’t think there is any one issue which would get my vote as the deciding factor except one: Balanced budget. But, we all know neither party has any intentions of balancing the budget regardless of what they may say in public.

So, I decide my vote on social issues as many others do. I want this country to maintain its centrist views of family and nation. I don’t want to see it “burned down” by radicals on the left.

I don’t want SCOTUS to make public policy or pass new laws. I want SCOTUS to stick to the original intent of the law as passed by Congress.

As the country moves left I have no intention of moving left with it without a political fight.

Study Finds Partisan Gap on Political Values at All-Time High | Courthouse News Service

The partisan divide on fundamental political values – including attitudes about race, immigration and the…

www.courthousenews.com

 

[Matty44]

We are stuck with a 2 party system that is highly polarized. In fact, it seems with each election cycle the gap widens between the parties. That means we must choose the lesser of 2 evils when voting for a candidate.

For PGG there may be 1 or 2 issues which sways his vote. I don’t think there is any one issue which would get my vote as the deciding factor except one: Balanced budget. But, we all know neither party has any intentions of balancing the budget regardless of what they may say in public.

So, I decide my vote on social issues as many others do. I want this country to maintain its centrist views of family and nation. I don’t want to see it “burned down” by radicals on the left.

I don’t want SCOTUS to make public policy or pass new laws. I want SCOTUS to stick to the original intent of the law as passed by Congress.

As the country moves left I have no intention of moving left with it without a political fight.

Study Finds Partisan Gap on Political Values at All-Time High | Courthouse News Service

The partisan divide on fundamental political values – including attitudes about race, immigration and the…

www.courthousenews.com

I’m all for this.



Very interesting premise from Bret Weinstein. I know he talked about this on a recent Joe Rogan podcast. Think it would do the country a whole heck of a lot of good. Probably never happen though....

 

[GaseousClay]

The amount of bullying that goes on in social media and the hospital setting for having any conservative views is out of control. People can freely spew conservative hate (esp trump hate) in the operating rooms at my hospital without any problems. People wearing BLM shirts, openly calling conservatives white supremacists, hating christians etc all apparently acceptable in the OR chatter... However if you say all lives matter or criticize the protests in any way you will be considered for termination. Hence why a silent majority exists.

 

[nimbus]

“It’s hard to separate what’s good for the United States and what’s good for Bank of America,” said its former chief executive, Ken Lewis, in 2009. That was hardly true at the time, but the current crisis has revealed that the health of the finance industry and stock market are completely disconnected from the actual financial health of the American people. As inequality, unemployment and evictions climb, the Dow Jones surges right alongside them — one line compounding suffering, the other compounding returns for investors.
One reason is that an ideological coup quietly transformed our society over the last 50 years, raising the fortunes of the financial economy — and its agents like private equity firms — at the expense of the real economy experienced by most Americans.
The roots of this intellectual takeover can be traced to a backlash against socialism in Cold War Europe. Austrian School economist Friedrich A. Hayek was perhaps the most influential leader of that movement, decrying governments who chased “the mirage of social justice.” Only free markets can allocate resources fairly and reward individuals based on what they deserve, reasoned Hayek. The ideology — known as neoliberalism — was especially potent because it disguised itself as a neutral statement of economics rather than just another theory. Only unfettered markets, the theory argued, could ensure justice and freedom because only the profit motive could dispassionately pick winners and losers based on their contribution to the economy.”


Opinion | The Neoliberal Looting of America

These policies have created a massive transfer of wealth from poor and middle class people to the already rich. This course is unsustainable and if we don’t correct it, it will be corrected for us ala French Revolution.

 

[pgg]

You may hold that personal opinion about a government social safety net, but would it be fair to say that to some third party observer there really isn’t any evidence of you holding that opinion other than just taking your word for it?

For example, I will tell you that I am generally supportive of 2A. And I think a lot of people who only know me by my liberal leaning posts would think that is laughable and that I’m full of sht. They’d ask my voting record and it would be be close to a 0 NRA rating. But as far as evidence, I’ve owned firearms for almost 20 years. I currently own a Bushmaster M4 and a Romanian AK. I’ve put my money where my mouth is as far as exercising my 2A right, so when I tell you I generally support 2A my words don’t ring totally hollow.


More broadly though, this is one of the biggest problems with the two-party system. There is no room for those that are very far left, very far right, or those that want to pick and choose between some liberal and some conservative policies.

Totally agree our 2-party system is harmful, and that all of my 3rd party votes are wasted (beyond helping me sleep at night). However, since you're comparing healthcare and 2A and the "evidence" for what each side wants ...

Republicans have been largely neutral-to-hostile to the Affordable Care Act. (No secret that Trump got some conservative votes in part because of his "repeal and replace" platform.) But when push came to shove, with Trump as president and both the Senate and House in GOP hands, there was enough nuance and variability in GOP opinions on healthcare, enough resistance to killing ACA, that it didn't actually happen. And now we've got voters in Oklahoma favoring Medicaid expansion, albeit by a slim margin. It's easy for me to believe there's presently evidence of significantly different GOP opinions and lobbying efforts on healthcare, that reasonable compromises could be reached. (That certainly wasn't the case for much of Obama's presidency, which was characterized by no-holds-barred scorched earth GOP attacks on the ACA from every angle. But it's the case now.)

Democrats have been largely neutral-to-hostile to the 2nd Amendment. Here, when push came to shove, with Northam as governor of Virginia and both the state Senate and state House in Democrat hands, the first thing they did was author literally dozens of gun control bills ... the majority of which were "shelved for next year" after coming up a vote or two short in the state Senate. They still passed 7 bills that were signed into law and went into effect yesterday. It's NOT easy for me to believe there's evidence of significantly different Democrat opinions and lobbying efforts on gun control. All I see from every Democrat is aggressive support for gun control. It's a core plank in their platform. Everywhere, including previously blue-doggish states like Virginia and Texas (e.g. Beto).

So ... while I believe you when you say you're generally supportive of the 2nd Amendment, and I'm glad to know at least one Democrat voter who doesn't favor gutting the 2nd Amendment ... in the end, your verbal support for the 2nd Amendment means about as much as you think Blade's verbal support for a social safety net means. Because he'll keep voting R and he'll shrug when that support gets cut, and you'll keep voting D and you'll shrug when you have to register and then turn in your Bushmaster.

 

[vector2]

Totally agree our 2-party system is harmful, and that all of my 3rd party votes are wasted (beyond helping me sleep at night). However, since you're comparing healthcare and 2A and the "evidence" for what each side wants ...

Republicans have been largely neutral-to-hostile to the Affordable Care Act. (No secret that Trump got some conservative votes in part because of his "repeal and replace" platform.) But when push came to shove, with Trump as president and both the Senate and House in GOP hands, there was enough nuance and variability in GOP opinions on healthcare, enough resistance to killing ACA, that it didn't actually happen. And now we've got voters in Oklahoma favoring Medicaid expansion, albeit by a slim margin. It's easy for me to believe there's presently evidence of significantly different GOP opinions and lobbying efforts on healthcare, that reasonable compromises could be reached. (That certainly wasn't the case for much of Obama's presidency, which was characterized by no-holds-barred scorched earth GOP attacks on the ACA from every angle. But it's the case now.)

Democrats have been largely neutral-to-hostile to the 2nd Amendment. Here, when push came to shove, with Northam as governor of Virginia and both the state Senate and state House in Democrat hands, the first thing they did was author literally dozens of gun control bills ... the majority of which were "shelved for next year" after coming up a vote or two short in the state Senate. They still passed 7 bills that were signed into law and went into effect yesterday. It's NOT easy for me to believe there's evidence of significantly different Democrat opinions and lobbying efforts on gun control. All I see from every Democrat is aggressive support for gun control. It's a core plank in their platform. Everywhere, including previously blue-doggish states like Virginia and Texas (e.g. Beto).

So ... while I believe you when you say you're generally supportive of the 2nd Amendment, and I'm glad to know at least one Democrat voter who doesn't favor gutting the 2nd Amendment ... in the end, your verbal support for the 2nd Amendment means about as much as you think Blade's verbal support for a social safety net means. Because he'll keep voting R and he'll shrug when that support gets cut, and you'll keep voting D and you'll shrug when you have to register and then turn in your Bushmaster.

Republicans are simply “neutral to hostile” ? LOL, there is literally another case brought by Trump and 18 Republican state AGs that is currently pending before SCOTUS that would result in the entire repeal of the ACA, loss of insurance to 20 million and the removal of pre-existing conditions protection.

ACA Survives Legal Challenge, Protecting Coverage for Tens of Millions | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The Trump Administration and 18 Republican state attorneys general are asking the courts to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA) as unconstitutional.

www.cbpp.org

Also, given that the national political will for gun control is so weak and that I live in a state which unlike Virginia is more likely to break away from the Union again than enforce me turning in my Bushmaster, the issue just doesn’t really rise to the very top for me.

 

[Lawpy]

A lot of gun control laws should definitely be repealed.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Republicans are simply “neutral to hostile” ? LOL, there is literally another case brought by Trump and 18 Republican state AGs that is currently pending before SCOTUS that would result in the entire repeal of the ACA, loss of insurance to 20 million and the removal of pre-existing conditions protection.

ACA Survives Legal Challenge, Protecting Coverage for Tens of Millions | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The Trump Administration and 18 Republican state attorneys general are asking the courts to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA) as unconstitutional.

www.cbpp.org

Also, given that the national political will for gun control is so weak and that I live in a state which unlike Virginia is more likely to break away from the Union again than enforce me turning in my Bushmaster, the issue just doesn’t really rise to the very top for me.

After the recent Court decisions on much more divisive issues than the ACA I can't believe anyone thinks Justice Roberts is going to vote to abolish the ACA. What are the odds on SCOTUS reversing its decision on the ACA? 1 in a million?

The Court is way more LEFT than anyone thought it would with Justice Roberts taking the place of retired Justice Kennedy. My very conservative friends think Roberts is MORE LIBERAL than Kennedy. The Court is 5-4 with the majority being on the Left. IMHO, there is a greater chance of TRUMP not running for a second term than Justice Roberts ruling the ACA as it stands today Unconstitutional.

 

[vector2]

After the recent Court decisions on much more divisive issues than the ACA I can't believe anyone thinks Justice Roberts is going to vote to abolish the ACA. What are the odds on SCOTUS reversing its decision on the ACA? 1 in a million?

The Court is way more LEFT than anyone thought it would with Justice Roberts taking the place of retired Justice Kennedy. My very conservative friends think Roberts is MORE LIBERAL than Kennedy. The Court is 5-4 with the majority be on the Left.

I don't think he will either. But that's besides the point in regard the assertion from you and pgg that all of a sudden ACA/medicaid etc had become anywhere close to neutral for the GOP.

 

[BLADEMDA]

John Roberts' argument for saving Obamacare helping power legal challenge

Chief Justice John Roberts saved Obamacare in 2012 by calling it a tax. Now, his core argument is helping power a Republican-led legal challenge that threatens to sweep away the entire law.

www.cnn.com

Justice Roberts will make up some ridiculous reason why the ACA is needed and Constitutional. His decision in 2012 made NO SENSE and his decision in 2020 won't make any sense again as he votes 5-4 to uphold the ACA.

 

[pgg]

I don't think he will either. But that's besides the point in regard the assertion from you and pgg that all of a sudden ACA/medicaid etc had become anywhere close to neutral for the GOP.

It was mostly reflexive opposition to Obama and anything Obama did.

If you look at Republican work on healthcare, you'll find expansion after expansion. GWB and Medicare part D drug benefit, Romneycare wasn't crazily different than some Obamacare proposals, the GOP getting icy cold feet about "repeal and replace" once they realized a bunch of GOP voters didn't actually want it to go away, now this Oklahoma thing.

Republicans like big government healthcare ... if it's a Republican's idea. Yeah, it's disingenuous and frustrating, but there's a range of opinion on the right that affects the actual votes cast by Republican Senators and Representatives on healthcare related issues. That just isn't the case with gun control and the left.

I'm saying it's plausible that Republicans could get on board with expanding healthcare benefits (of course it is - they actually have, repeatedly) but it's not plausible that Democrats will to quit trying to ban guns.


Although I sort of hope current events regarding police brutality have enlightened a reliable segment of the Democrat base that maybe just maybe they don't really want to live in a country where only the police have guns after all. And maybe, the notion that gun control is good for them and good for their communities is just a lie they've been told by a party that counts on their votes but doesn't really care about them when an election isn't on the horizon.

 

[vector2]

It was mostly reflexive opposition to Obama and anything Obama did.

If you look at Republican work on healthcare, you'll find expansion after expansion. GWB and Medicare part D drug benefit, Romneycare wasn't crazily different than some Obamacare proposals, the GOP getting icy cold feet about "repeal and replace" once they realized a bunch of GOP voters didn't actually want it to go away, now this Oklahoma thing.

Republicans like big government healthcare ... if it's a Republican's idea. Yeah, it's disingenuous and frustrating, but there's a range of opinion on the right that affects the actual votes cast by Republican Senators and Representatives on healthcare related issues. That just isn't the case with gun control and the left.

I'm saying it's plausible that Republicans could get on board with expanding healthcare benefits (of course it is - they actually have, repeatedly) but it's not plausible that Democrats will to quit trying to ban guns.


Although I sort of hope current events regarding police brutality have enlightened a reliable segment of the Democrat base that maybe just maybe they don't really want to live in a country where only the police have guns after all. And maybe, the notion that gun control is good for them and good for their communities is just a lie they've been told by a party that counts on their votes but doesn't really care about them when an election isn't on the horizon.

I'm not sure if a GWB pre-tea party comparison or what Romney was able to do 15 years ago in the state of Massachusetts is particularly relevant to the gonzo GOP of today. Let's not forget, it was just 3 yrs ago all the GOP senators including the so called moderates Collins and Murkowski voted for the skinny repeal, and it came down to a dying John McCain to make sure the vote failed.

I agree that it's plausible they may come around because the GOP's platform-level views on healthcare are wildly unpopular with even a large swath of GOP voters, but I find it implausible they will ever stop trying to demolish (privatize) medicare/medicaid/ss

As for whether the current events have helped enlighten dems on guns, consider that your main argument for gun ownership is not as a deterrent against tanks and B2 bombers, but against the small group of government thugs who would come to your house at night to do you and your family harm. Now, fair or not, consider how the average anti-gun dem thinks that logic worked out for Breonna Taylor and her BF (who for all we know would still have an attempted murder charge against him if not for the publicity).

 

[BLADEMDA]

I'm not sure if a GWB pre-tea party comparison or what Romney was able to do 15 years ago in the state of Massachusetts is particularly relevant to the gonzo GOP of today. Let's not forget, it was just 3 yrs ago all the GOP senators including the so called moderates Collins and Murkowski voted for the skinny repeal, and it came down to a dying John McCain to make sure the vote failed.

I agree that it's plausible they may come around because the GOP's platform-level views on healthcare are wildly unpopular with even a large swath of GOP voters, but I find it implausible they will ever stop trying to demolish (privatize) medicare/medicaid/ss

As for whether the current events have helped enlighten dems on guns, consider that your main argument for gun ownership is not as a deterrent against tanks and B2 bombers, but against the small group of government thugs who would come to your house at night to do you and your family harm. Now, fair or not, consider how the average anti-gun dem thinks that logic worked out for Breonna Taylor and her BF (who for all we know would still have an attempted murder charge against him if not for the publicity).

Public Opinion has shifted on healthcare. That is a fact. The majority of Republicans now support the concept of universal healthcare for all citizens. That doesn't mean the GOP embraces a single payer system but it does mean the poorest among us do need Medicaid. Medicare isn't going anywhere and will likely be expanded. What many on both sides don't like are the huge subsidies for insurance companies that the ACA has created. The result is the cost of an ACA approved plan is very expensive.

The ACA is a bad piece of legislation because it made healthcare much more expensive not just "universal" in coverage. I don't see the GOP in 2020 running on healthcare or privatizing Medicare/SS. Those are losing issues for the GOP and they know it.

 

[vector2]

Public Opinion has shifted on healthcare. That is a fact. The majority of Republicans now support the concept of universal healthcare for all citizens. That doesn't mean the GOP embraces a single payer system but it does mean the poorest among us do need Medicaid. Medicare isn't going anywhere and will likely be expanded. What many on both sides don't like are the huge subsidies for insurance companies that the ACA has created. The result is the cost of an ACA approved plan is very expensive.

The ACA is a bad piece of legislation because it made healthcare much more expensive not just "universal" in coverage. I don't see the GOP in 2020 running on healthcare or privatizing Medicare/SS. Those are losing issues for the GOP and they know it.

The ACA has expensive plans not only because the subsidies aren't generous enough once one reaches the 400% FPL cliff, but also because the GOP dismantled cost sharing reduction payments. Additionally, they repealed the individual mandate, and anyone who has a basic understanding of economics realizes that if you have less payers in the pool, premiums go up for those who remain in the pool. Don't get me wrong, the ACA is a dumpster fire in many ways, but much of it is largely because the there was no chance a single-payer (aka a non-giveaway-to-the-insurance-companies plan) was going to pass in 2010, given that there were already 0 GOP votes for the ACA back then.

You are right that public opinion has shifted- unfortunately given our lack of term limits, gerrymandering, and big money in politics, GOP politicians can many times effect policy verbatim from the Heritage Foundation with nary a concern of what their voters actually want. This may be changing given the 2018 wave in which the issue of healthcare played a big role, but I think it remains to be seen whether this is definitively the case going forward.

 

[Lawpy]

Why are WSJ readers sympathizing and supporting the Confederacy?

Opinion | Name Bases for Heroes, Not Traitors

The military should honor patriots of all stripes, not Confederates who fought to defend slavery.

www.wsj.com

Can we PLEASE rename all Confederate bases, streets, towns, schools etc.? Please. I hate the Confederacy with every fiber in my body.

 

[vector2]

Why are WSJ readers sympathizing and supporting the Confederacy?

Opinion | Name Bases for Heroes, Not Traitors

The military should honor patriots of all stripes, not Confederates who fought to defend slavery.

www.wsj.com

Can we PLEASE rename all Confederate bases, streets, towns, schools etc.? Please. I hate the Confederacy with every fiber in my body.

WSJ journalists are good but their Opinion section is absolute garbage. It's not even Fox News late nite bad....it's OAN/Breitbart bad.

 

[Lawpy]

WSJ journalists are good but their Opinion section is absolute garbage. It's not even Fox News late nite bad....it's OAN/Breitbart bad.

Did you read the oped? That looks good to me but i made the mistake in reading the comments. I thought people posting under their real names are serious and honest.

 

[vector2]

Did you read the oped? That looks good to me but i made the mistake in reading the comments. I thought people posting under their real names are serious and honest.

Im not talking about that op-ed specifically, just 90% of the rest of them which most of their readers love

 

[BLADEMDA]

Im not talking about that op-ed specifically, just 90% of the rest of them which most of their readers love

To be fair, this discussion is happening during a very heated time in our society. If the citizens want to rename bases and streets that's fine with most Americans. But, I think the time to do that is NOT during violent riots when law breakers and looters scream "burn it all down" with the police standing bye. We the people need Law and Order more than we need new names on streets or bases. Statues should be removed by civil authorities not torn down by looters and communists.

I do agree the military bases were originally named to appease Southerners due to the "Lost Cause" of the Civil War. But, since that time the bases have taken on their own meaning since World War 1.

The reason you see the comments on that editorial is that many citizens do not want our nation run by MOB rule. The MOB doesn't get to make policy or destroy property. If the legislatures vote to change their state Flag or remove a statue that is both a legal and moral decision. But, when the MOB does it or any other violent group that is illegal behavior and should be rejected by all members of this society.

 

[nimbus]

To be fair, this discussion is happening during a very heated time in our society. If the citizens want to rename bases and streets that's fine with most Americans. But, I think the time to do that is NOT during violent riots when law breakers and looters scream "burn it all down" with the police standing bye. We the people need Law and Order more than we need new names on streets or bases. Statues should be removed by civil authorities not torn down by looters and communists.

I do agree the military bases were originally named to appease Southerners due to the "Lost Cause" of the Civil War. But, since that time the bases have taken on their own meaning since World War 1.

The reason you see the comments on that editorial is that many citizens do not want our nation run by MOB rule. The MOB doesn't get to make policy or destroy property. If the legislatures vote to change their state Flag or remove a statue that is both a legal and moral decision. But, when the MOB does it or any other violent group that is illegal behavior and should be rejected by all members of this society.

The current administration has a complete disregard for law or order. I don’t believe the MOB could have so much support and momentum without Trump.

Thankfully SCOTUS still has a high regard for law.

 

[vector2]

. But, I think the time to do that is NOT during violent riots when law breakers and looters scream "burn it all down" with the police standing bye. We the people need Law and Order more than we need new names on streets or bases.

Truly spoken like someone who's never read Letter from Birmingham Jail

 

[abolt18]

To be fair, this discussion is happening during a very heated time in our society. If the citizens want to rename bases and streets that's fine with most Americans. But, I think the time to do that is NOT during violent riots when law breakers and looters scream "burn it all down" with the police standing bye. We the people need Law and Order more than we need new names on streets or bases. Statues should be removed by civil authorities not torn down by looters and communists.

I do agree the military bases were originally named to appease Southerners due to the "Lost Cause" of the Civil War. But, since that time the bases have taken on their own meaning since World War 1.

The reason you see the comments on that editorial is that many citizens do not want our nation run by MOB rule. The MOB doesn't get to make policy or destroy property. If the legislatures vote to change their state Flag or remove a statue that is both a legal and moral decision. But, when the MOB does it or any other violent group that is illegal behavior and should be rejected by all members of this society.

Isn't it the MOB rule (depending on your perspective) that gave us this country?

 

[vector2]

Watching the coverage of trump about to speak at Rushmore. Apparently there are some Lakota protesting because like many others they see trump and pence speaking there as obviously obscene. trump supporters in turn are yellIng back at them “go home.” And the Lakota naturally are saying back to them...”this is our home.”

That about sums up trumpism in one perfect little bigoted, ignorant nutshell.

 

[Goro]

Republicans are simply “neutral to hostile” ? LOL, there is literally another case brought by Trump and 18 Republican state AGs that is currently pending before SCOTUS that would result in the entire repeal of the ACA, loss of insurance to 20 million and the removal of pre-existing conditions protection in the middle of a pandemic.

FTFY

 

[epidural man]

Democrats have been largely neutral-to-hostile to the 2nd Amendment.

Both parties have been hostile to the 4th Amendment. Tell me...how is that when the Patriot Act was recently extended, and they added on a provision that the FBI, without asking permission, or getting a warrant, or even needing a reason...can look at ANYONE's browser history - just for the hell of it...can pass and no one cares? How is it that no one bats an eye about this? No one on the right. No one on the left. It boggles my libertarian mind.

 

[Lawpy]

Both parties have been hostile to the 4th Amendment. Tell me...how is that when the Patriot Act was recently extended, and they added on a provision that the FBI, without asking permission, or getting a warrant, or even needing a reason...can look at ANYONE's browser history - just for the hell of it...can pass and no one cares? How is it that no one bats an eye about this? No one on the right. No one on the left. It boggles my libertarian mind.

Speaking of amendments, i'm just glad i can freely defy the 18th amendment with zero consequences. Covid 19 keeping bars closed is pretty sad though

 

[AMEHigh]

Watching the coverage of trump about to speak at Rushmore. Apparently there are some Lakota protesting because like many others they see trump and pence speaking there as obviously obscene. trump supporters in turn are yellIng back at them “go home.” And the Lakota naturally are saying back to them...”this is our home.”

That about sums up trumpism in one perfect little bigoted, ignorant nutshell.

Exactly!

Bail fund set up for those indigineous people arrested: NDN Collective

 

[BLADEMDA]

Isn't it the MOB rule (depending on your perspective) that gave us this country?

So, the notion that destruction of federal statues and private property is the way to voice the need for change is preposterous. This "insurrection" should be put down the same way it would have been put down in 1776. The difference is the silent majority does not support this "revolution" by communists and anarchists.

There could be a serious backlash to the MOB this November. What a person is willing to tell a pollster is far different than whom he/she will vote for in a confidential setting. The MOB should be put down and disavowed not rewarded for their anti-social behavior.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Truly spoken like someone who's never read Letter from Birmingham Jail

Truly spoken like a liberal without any concept of 1963 vs 2020. If Martin Luther King were here today he would not be supporting the violence and insurrection of 2020. These anarchists and communists do not represent King's values or his view of a color blind society.

Here is a quote from that letter from Birmingham Jail:

"In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation. "


The quote above PROVES that 2020 is not 1963. The people of the USA do not support racial injustice. Police brutality is condemned by all not just African Americans. The courts have proven over and over again to be very fair in treatment of African Americans since the civil rights act. City leaders want to negotiate with African American leadership. The white majority seeks reconciliation and peace with their African American neighbors.

57 years have passed since that letter was written. While injustice remains the USA of 2020 is a vastly different place than 1963. The USA is no longer a racist nation and the voices of African Americans are heard loud and clear without the necessity for violence. Those who choose violence and insurrection do so for their own gain not for the greater good of African Americans or society as a whole.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The American Mind

The Ideas That Drive American Political Life. A Publication of the Claremont Institute.

americanmind.org

Sen. Tim Scott Declares ‘We Are Not a Racist Country,’ Argues Dems’ Focus on Race Obstructs Police Reform

While unveiling the Republican police reform bill on Wednesday, Senator Tim Scott said that the U.S. is "not a racist country" and criticized Democrats for what he saw as their relentless focus on race, advocating a discrete approach to policy solutions designed to address police...

news.yahoo.com

 

[BLADEMDA]

There are maybe 5% of Americans who are racist. The other 95% see all people as equals. We have come very far in the past 57 years. Even Liberals from Harvard admit the MAJORITY of whites are not racist. While I disagree with the "25%" figure the author quotes he admits the nation itself is No longer racist as it was in the 1960s.


"I’ve argued in my writings that there has been extraordinary progress in the changing attitudes of white Americans toward blacks and other minorities. As late as the early ’60s, a majority of whites openly said they saw blacks as inferior, and now there is an acceptance of equality, at least in their views. I’ve always said that this may be the great majority, but there’s still 20, 25 percent of whites who still embrace white supremacist views. This hard core of white supremacists is still there and have been encouraged and are leading a revanchist sort of movement. And that’s quite frightening. "

Orlando Patterson explains why America can’t escape its racist roots

Interview with Orlando Patterson, a historical and cultural sociologist, about the killing of George Floyd and how it exposed the deep roots of racism in American society.

news.harvard.edu

 

[Monty Python]

I mean yes, but. I think raising corporate taxes to a middle ground between pre-Trump and now is very reasonable. Definitely need to do something about capital gains (while making sure retirement accounts aren't included in that). You could even convince me that upping FICA is worth doing, although I'd prefer just raising the maximum a bit. Its 137k now, why not just go up to say 175k or something.

But if you're going to do all of that, I'm not sure increasing the federal income tax rates as well is really necessary.

I’d suggest permanently indexing it annually for inflation. That would automate the process and hopefully eliminate or minimize political gamesmanship with the entitlement.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

So, I decide my vote on social issues as many others do. I want this country to maintain its centrist views of family and nation. I don’t want to see it “burned down” by radicals on the left.

Blade, your vote for Trump will ensure that the country lurches more towards the extreme right populated by religious zealots and other "deplorables". This is one of the demographics that Trump panders to. The hypocrisy is astounding. The far right will burn this country down infinitely more that the "radicals" on the left.

 

[AMEHigh]

There are maybe 5% of Americans who are racist. The other 95% see all people as equals. We have come very far in the past 57 years. Even Liberals from Harvard admit the MAJORITY of whites are not racist. While I disagree with the "25%" figure the author quotes he admits the nation itself is No longer racist as it was in the 1960s.


"I’ve argued in my writings that there has been extraordinary progress in the changing attitudes of white Americans toward blacks and other minorities. As late as the early ’60s, a majority of whites openly said they saw blacks as inferior, and now there is an acceptance of equality, at least in their views. I’ve always said that this may be the great majority, but there’s still 20, 25 percent of whites who still embrace white supremacist views. This hard core of white supremacists is still there and have been encouraged and are leading a revanchist sort of movement. And that’s quite frightening. "

Orlando Patterson explains why America can’t escape its racist roots

Interview with Orlando Patterson, a historical and cultural sociologist, about the killing of George Floyd and how it exposed the deep roots of racism in American society.

news.harvard.edu

Did you read the whole article you quoted? I don’t necessarily agree with everything he said but he made some good points. I’m going to assume you’re not Black so you don’t quite understand what it’s like being Black in this country. I think the movement is finally gaining traction among non-Black people because we aren’t saying that every white person is a racist klan member. What we’re saying is that centuries of racism has lead to policies biases that disproportionately negatively affect Black people. From school to housing to the supposed criminal justice system to name a few. Policies and biases over centuries still "enslave" us. Instead of getting defensive and just automatically saying "I’m not racist" think about what you do in your everyday life to be anti-racist, which requires thought and action in this country that was built on white supremacy.

Abolishment of slavery and Jim Crow were not that long ago, so to think that just poof the country is now equal for all people is delusional.

Quote from the article you posted:

"I don’t [think] slavery was strictly abolished in 1865. What was abolished in 1865 was the personal individual enslavement of one person by another, but what persisted was the culture of slavery, and central to this culture was the sense that the white population felt it was their duty to control and suppress black freedom. They did this in various ways, through the lynch mob, but also by the use of incarceration, during the neo-slavery system of Jim Crow.

During Jim Crow, what persisted was the attitude to see blacks as outsiders, as people to be punished, to be held in control, to be denied basic privileges of citizenship or ownership of land and to be recklessly imprisoned. In that sense, slavery was not really abolished in America until the 1960s, when the Jim Crow system was finally, fundamentally dismantled. So of course we need a lot of education in our schools about that and what the consequences were for blacks, as well as for whites. It’s important that people learn that."

 

[BLADEMDA]

Blade, your vote for Trump will ensure that the country lurches more towards the extreme right populated by religious zealots and other "deplorables". This is one of the demographics that Trump panders to. The hypocrisy is astounding. The far right will burn this country down infinitely more that the "radicals" on the left.

Far right? Extreme right? My friends and I don't see that level of extremism at all. We see a Trump who was/is a Democrat his entire life. Trump, the New Yorker, whose daughter converted to Judaism. Trump isn't any more a far right member than Obama is a communist.

The Trump voter doesn't want to burn down American; he/she wants to see it be respected and restored as the shining beacon on the hill. Your post is as about as accurate as the left wing zealots who said SCOTUS would overturn Roe vs Wade. The past few weeks have clearly shown the fear mongering about the Court was completely unfounded. This is true concerning Donald Trump as well.

The hypocrisy I see is mostly on the left as they falsely accuse those who they do not like and do not agree with as racists or zealots. The "deplorables" just want a fair shot at a decent life. They want a true color blind society where rewards are earned through merit.

 

[vector2]

"


The quote above PROVES that 2020 is not 1963. The people of the USA do not support racial injustice. Police brutality is condemned by all not just African Americans. The courts have proven over and over again to be very fair in treatment of African Americans since the civil rights act. City leaders want to negotiate with African American leadership. The white majority seeks reconciliation and peace with their African American neighbors.

57 years have passed since that letter was written. While injustice remains the USA of 2020 is a vastly different place than 1963. The USA is no longer a racist nation and the voices of African Americans are heard loud and clear without the necessity for violence. Those who choose violence and insurrection do so for their own gain not for the greater good of African Americans or society as a whole.

Lol, your statement is a fair mix of delusion and ignorance. It was barely 5 years ago that uttering "Black Lives Matters" was a 4 letter word, and it still is to you. Don't give me this shi+ that just because we're not literally living in 1963 that everything is fine, because you and 40% of the population are currently enabling and are about to vote again for someone who is desperate to go back to 1963 America.


"The courts have proven over and over since the Civil Rights Act to be very fair in treatment of African Americans" ? Hahahhahhahahhahahaha. I mean, seriously......hahhahhahhahhahahahhhahahhahah. What planet are you living on, blade?

-----
Anti-drug abuse act of 1986 ensured that possessors of crack (mostly black) ended up getting sentences 100x that of possessors of cocaine (mostly white) on a gram for gram basis.

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Black male offenders received sentences on average 19.1 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders

Black male offenders were 21.2 percent less likely than White male offenders to receive a non-government sponsored downward departure or variance during the Post-Report period. Furthermore, when Black male offenders did receive a non-government sponsored departure or variance, they received sentences 16.8 percent longer than White male offenders

Black male offenders received sentences on average 20.4 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders, accounting for violence in an offender’s past

Demographic Differences in Sentencing

(November 2017) A report updating the Commission's data analysis concerning demographic differences in federal sentencing practices set forth in the Commission's 2012 Report to the Congress: Continuing Impact of United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing.

www.ussc.gov

According to a 2001 study, Hispanics and blacks receive an average sentencing of 54.1 and 64.1 months, respectively, while whites receive an average of 32.1 months.[80] 77,236 offenders, sentenced under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984,[80] were evaluated to control for extraneous variables other than race, but these findings remain relevant despite the fact that the offenders committed the same offense and received sentencing from the same district court. This finding is consistent across jurisdictions in multiple states within the U.S., and direct discrimination was found to be more prominent at the federal level.[81] There are many theorists who attempt to explain why these disparities exist. Racial stereotypes and related factors such as socioeconomic status may influence the court's perception of the individual as well as its decision-making.[82] For instance, judges may perceive minority defendants as unable to afford fines or probation fees. Consequently, they resort to jail term as opposed to community corrections sentence.

Research also suggests that there is discrimination by the judicial system, which contributes to a higher number of convictions and unfavorable sentencing for racial minorities.[86][87][88][89][90][14][13][91][92] A 2012 study found that "(i) juries formed from all-white jury pools convict black defendants significantly (16 percentage points) more often than white defendants, and (ii) this gap in conviction rates is entirely eliminated when the jury pool includes at least one black member."[88] Research has found evidence of in-group bias, where "black (white) juveniles who are randomly assigned to black (white) judges are more likely to get incarcerated (as opposed to being placed on probation), and they receive longer sentences."[90]

A 2014 study in the Journal of Political Economy found that 9% of the black-white gap in sentencing could not be accounted for.[13] The elimination of unexplained sentencing disparities would reduce "the level of black men in federal prison by 8,000–11,000 men [out of black male prison population of 95,000] and save $230–$320 million per year in direct costs."[13] The majority of the unexplained sentencing disparity appears to occur at the point when prosecutors decide to bring charges carrying "mandatory minimum" sentences.[13] A 2018 paper by Alma Cohen and Crystal Yang of Harvard Law School found that "that Republican-appointed judges give substantially longer prison sentences to black offenders versus observably similar non-black offenders compared to Democratic-appointed judges within the same district court."[93] A 2018 study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics found that bail judges in Miami and Philadelphia were racially biased against black defendants, as white defendants had higher rates of pretrial misconduct than black defendants.[14]

In criminal sentencing, medium to dark-skinned African Americans are likely to receive sentences 2.6 years longer than those of whites or light-skinned African Americans. When a white victim is involved, those with more "black" features are likely to receive a much more severe punishment.[94] A 2018 National Bureau of Economic Research experiment found that law students, economics students and practicing lawyers who watched 3D Virtual Reality videos of court trials (where the researchers altered the race of the defendants) showed a racial bias against minorities.[95]

A 2016 report by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune found that Florida judges sentence black defendants to far longer prison sentences than whites with the same background.[96] For the same drug possession crimes, blacks were sentenced to double the time of whites.[96] Blacks were given longer sentences in 60 percent of felony cases, 68 percent of the most serious first-degree crimes, 45 percent of burglary cases and 30 percent of battery cases.[96] For third-degree felonies (the least serious types of felonies in Florida), white judges sentenced blacks to twenty percent more time than whites, whereas black judges gave more balanced sentences.[96]

A 2014 study on the application of the death penalty in Connecticut over the period 1973–2007 found "that minority defendants who kill white victims are capitally charged at substantially higher rates than minority defendants who kill minorities... There is also strong and statistically significant evidence that minority defendants who kill whites are more likely to end up with capital sentences than comparable cases with white defendants."[107]

Race in the United States criminal justice system - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

----

 

[Arch Guillotti]

Far right? Extreme right? My friends and I don't see that level of extremism at all. We see a Trump who was/is a Democrat his entire life. Trump, the New Yorker, whose daughter converted to Judaism. Trump isn't any more a far right member than Obama is a communist.

The Trump voter doesn't want to burn down American; he/she wants to see it be respected and restored as the shining beacon on the hill. Your post is as about as accurate as the left wing zealots who said SCOTUS would overturn Roe vs Wade. The past few weeks have clearly shown the fear mongering about the Court was completely unfounded. This is true concerning Donald Trump as well.

The hypocrisy I see is mostly on the left as they falsely accuse those who they do not like and do not agree with as racists or zealots. The "deplorables" just want a fair shot at a decent life. They want a true color blind society where rewards are earned through merit.

Blade, yes Trump was originally a Democrat. The only reason he became a Republican was because Obama made fun of him and the "left-wing" elite liberal New Yorkers and Hollywood types he desperately courted wouldn't give him the time of day (except for Epstein).

Your comment about America being respected is laughable. We are now basically the laughingstock of the world with corporal bone spur as our "leader".

Neither Trump or Pence can utter "Black Lives Matter" - yet you argue that they want a "true color blind society".

 

[vector2]

Far right? Extreme right? My friends and I don't see that level of extremism at all. .

Let's see....

WH resident white supremacist Stephen Miller wants to ban all immigration, not just illegal. The current H1B ban is the first step to a total ban

Approves having brown kids locked in cages

Wants to build a literal wall with Mexico

No support for any gun restrictions

Wants the total overturn of Roe v Wade

Wants total privatization and/or block granting of medicare/ss/medicaid. Wants to repeal ACA without a replacement ready

Overturned every environmental regulation possible and pulled out of paris climate accord

Has consistently appointed the most extreme judges, many without qualifications

Tax cut where the vast majority of benefit went to rich and corporations

Wants to overturn gay marriage, gays in military, and other LGBT rights

Has zero regard for minority civil rights or racial disparities

Total and inexplicable support for the most fascist and totalitarian dictators around the world
----

In what world is this platform not far right or extreme right? The only thing missing is trade and military expansion but his are still conservative libertarian takes

 

[Arch Guillotti]

In what world is this platform not far right or extreme right? The only thing missing is trade and military expansion but his are still conservative libertarian takes

This world:

 

[AMEHigh]

Blade, yes Trump was originally a Democrat. The only reason he became a Republican was because Obama made fun of him and the "left-wing" elite liberal New Yorkers and Hollywood types he desperately courted wouldn't give him the time of day (except for Epstein).

Your comment about America being respected is laughable. We are now basically the laughingstock of the world with corporal bone spur as our "leader".

Neither Trump or Pence can utter "Black Lives Matter" - yet you argue that they want a "true color blind society".

I always have to laugh and shake my head when a white straight cis gendered man says ehh "trump isn’t so bad." From reproductive rights (title x being dismantled and money going to bogus crisis pregnancy centers, etc), to being able to discriminate against trans gendered people in health care, to locking immigrant kids in cages, etc etc I think those policies appeal to a certain subset of America. Plus he’s packed the courts with judges in record numbers who are the vast majority white and male. That certainly is not a coincidence.

Do we not remember trump’s opening speech about Mexicans bringing their criminals and rapist to this country??? (Immigrants actually have a net positive on the economy and typically less likely to commit crime). Or the fact that he retweets white supremacy propaganda, including a video where someone was yelling white power. Yep, that’s totally not problematic.

I try to avoid watching his speeches since he got elected, but of course some highlights are in the news, so I can only imagine the other problematic stuff he says that I miss or doesn’t make the news.

Stephen Miller scares me and he seems to be the brain behind a lot of policy.

I have no problem with Republicans in general, especially before trump was elected, but to act like this administration has created policy that isn’t harmful to certain people is crazy.

 

[nimbus]

Far right? Extreme right? My friends and I don't see that level of extremism at all. We see a Trump who was/is a Democrat his entire life. Trump, the New Yorker, whose daughter converted to Judaism. Trump isn't any more a far right member than Obama is a communist.

The Trump voter doesn't want to burn down American; he/she wants to see it be respected and restored as the shining beacon on the hill. Your post is as about as accurate as the left wing zealots who said SCOTUS would overturn Roe vs Wade. The past few weeks have clearly shown the fear mongering about the Court was completely unfounded. This is true concerning Donald Trump as well.

The hypocrisy I see is mostly on the left as they falsely accuse those who they do not like and do not agree with as racists or zealots. The "deplorables" just want a fair shot at a decent life. They want a true color blind society where rewards are earned through merit.

Even though he is supposedly the president of the entire United States, he has not made a single attempt to extend his hand to the left, find areas of common ground, and build bridges. He only panders to his base and divides the country. Listen to his speech from last night. Is that leadership or demagoguery? It’s almost as if he’s trying to incite another civil war. There is no progress or problem solving for our country with him in office. We are the laughing stock of the entire world. When will he start taking COVID seriously?

 

[nimbus]

I always have to laugh and shake my head when a white straight cis gendered man says ehh "trump isn’t so bad." From reproductive rights (title x being dismantled and money going to bogus crisis pregnancy centers, etc), to being able to discriminate against trans gendered people in health care, to locking immigrant kids in cages, etc etc I think those policies appeal to a certain subset of America. Plus he’s packed the courts with judges in record numbers who are the vast majority white and male. That certainly is not a coincidence.

Do we not remember trump’s opening speech about Mexicans bringing their criminals and rapist to this country??? (Immigrants actually have a net positive on the economy and typically less likely to commit crime). Or the fact that he retweets white supremacy propaganda, including a video where someone was yelling white power. Yep, that’s totally not problematic.

I try to avoid watching his speeches since he got elected, but of course some highlights are in the news, so I can only imagine the other problematic stuff he says that I miss or doesn’t make the news.

Stephen Miller scares me and he seems to be the brain behind a lot of policy.

I have no problem with Republicans in general, especially before trump was elected, but to act like this administration has created policy that isn’t harmful to certain people is crazy.

He’s harming the entire country and many Republicans are beginning to acknowledge that.