#everything you criticized trump for biden and his team also does. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

novitskewriter55 · 3 years

Text

Luke Novitske

English 102-06

Instructor: Jill Sumstad

10/4/20

Commentary Essay

Does Social Media Cause Division?

(Believing/Doubting)

Social media plays a bigger role in politics, race relations, and society now than it ever has before. Some people will debate that these effects are negative and others believe they are positive. The way the media runs nowadays, news can spread like wildfire, and everybody owns technology so they have access to all of the information. There are both advantages and disadvantages to anybody being able to put anything they want out to the public in a blink of an eye. Many sources will tell that social media creates a divide between Republicans and Democrats and only provides them with a larger platform to hash out their differences. Other sources argue that technology allows us the ability to speak our minds to greater crowds which is healthy for society.

Living in the year 2020, we tend to see a lot of negativity in the media which makes it hard to stay positive. It seems that whenever you turn on the TV to Fox News or CNN, all you see is Republicans and Democrats bashing each other. This creates the idea that the media is using its popular platform to cause a divide in society. When I scroll through my social media feed nowadays, I see a lot of hate being exchanged between the two main political parties, “Another trend on experts’ minds is how the algorithms behind these massively influential social media platforms may contribute to the rise of extremism and hate online,” (Social Media’s Impact on Society). Currently, millions of Americans are preparing for November 3rd to vote for either Joe Biden or President Donald Trump. After the political debates my mom and I flipped back and forth between CNN and Fox News. On CNN, we didn’t hear one good thing about Donald Trump, so based on the news that they are telling their viewers Donald Trump lost the debate. On Fox, the spokesperson made it seem like Joe Biden had no good points throughout the debate creating the idea that he lost by a landslide. These two different television networks are speaking about two completely opposite narratives which creates the illusion that the right and the left cannot agree on anything. This is what makes it easier for people to believe that the media is the main cause behind the division. It is being reported that large corporations such as google and amazon are creating rigorous fact checking methods in order to promote post-truth politics, however, Richard Muirhead believes that these methods will be ineffective, “...while these features and services are useful, they are unlikely to change the minds of those who have already been exposed to the echo-chamber effect for many years.” Muirhead is explaining the difficulty of seeing through these false narratives that each party is hammering into their voters brains. Recently it has become a stereotype that if you are Republican you watch Fox and if you are Democratic you watch CNN. This concept generates biased opinions on the information you are receiving which builds echo chambers, “A study of Facebook users found a high degree of polarization within the social network, with users tending to interact most frequently with the people and narratives they agreed with — creating an echo chamber,” (Richard Muirhead, Technology as a force for division - and unification - in politics.) These two completely contrasting narratives have polarized our country into a political stalemate with both sides of the spectrum refusing to budge.

Social media is similar to the news networks. When scrolling through my instagram feed it seems like everything is political. Most social media nowadays is like this as politicians just use it to push their version of the story. The wise Plato once said, “those who tell the stories rule society.” Many politicians would rather tell a lie to boost their morale, than tell the truth and receive criticism, “Politicians from all sides use the web to push their own version of the story, and frequently it is not so important to be seen as honest as it is to be pushing a populist message that fits in with a group’s existing world view — however untrue it might be,” (Richard Muirhead). After watching the fact checking programs of the debates, it seemed that even those were a lie as each political party couldn’t even agree on the “facts.”

It was rare for former presidents to be active on social media, but that isn’t the case currently. President Trump uses twitter all the time and it causes quite a stir. Whenever he tweets it only adds fuel to the fire. When social media wasn’t as prevalent, back in the early 2000’s, our country seemed more together than ever. We even dealt with the national catastrophe of 9/11 which made our country even stronger, “The immediate aftermath of the attacks saw a nation come together – in acts of defiance and expressions of patriotism,” (Ryan Ramgobin). During the time we are going through right now, in an era where technology is way more advanced and social media is more popular, our country hasn’t stayed united during this pandemic. People use social media as their platform to spread hate which is the root cause of our separation.

Living in 2020 we have realized that there is a lot of negativity so it is hard to stay positive. It seems like everything you see whether you are watching the news, searching the internet or scrolling through social media is political. This is normally common while in an election year. There is actually a lot of positivity that goes on in these platforms, however, sometimes it is hard to find while in the midst of a pandemic. Just as I said earlier, social media uses algorithms that will sway your compass to what you want to see. If you enjoy following the hate between the two parties, then this is what you will continue to see on the apps. In contrast, if you are a more positive person and enjoy helpful content, then this is what you will see.

In regards to racial injustice, social media has been very beneficial. It has provided many African American citizens the opportunity to be heard. After the the murder of George Floyd, the black lives matter movement spoke up and even started multiple protests. This would have never been possible without the use of technology. Furthermore, there have been multiple celebrities such as professional athletes who have used their fans to promote change. All of these celebrities have thousands to millions of followers who look up to them, so when they say something powerful, people take it to heart. The NBA also used it’s platform to support the black lives matter movement. Throughout the NBA playoffs, the protests even got as serious as boycotting games. Some of the teams decided not to play because of the death of Breonna Taylor.

Social media, when used properly, can be the perfect way to spread positivity during a time where it is rare. During the vice presidential debate, Mike Pence the Republican candidate, said that even though he and Kamala Harris were debating which made it seem like they hate each other, at the end of the day they were both American and unified. Even if you disagree with someone’s political views, it is important that our country remains unified. Social media is the perfect way to spread positivity which will do just that!

Living in the 21st century we have seen a large spike in the usage of social media. With this comes advantages and disadvantages. According to Richard Muirhead, a disadvantage of social media is the political echo chambers that come with it. The only way our country is going to settle the dispute between Republicans and Democrats is by communicating. When a social media user is sucked into the echo chambers of their political party, they will lose the ability to be open minded about the ideas of the other party. Another negative effect social media has on our society is its ability to blow news out of proportion. We reviewed the difference between how the US reacted to the tragedy of 911 when social media wasn’t as prevalent, and now when we are dealing with this deadly virus. In contrast, we saw that social media can also boost positivity throughout communities. For example, the NBA players used their platform on social media to spread awareness about social injustice, which was very productive for our country. After reviewing both arguments; the first being that social media divides the two political parties and the second telling that social media unifies them, it is time for you to decide.

Luke Novitske

English 102-06

Instructor: Jill Sumstad

11/1/20

Annotated Bibliography

Anderson, Josh. “How Does Technology Impact Politics?” Acquia, 25 June 2019, Josh Anderson.

The author of this article, Josh Anderson, makes really good points about how technology, or to be more specific, social media, is used in politics today. This article is relevant to my topic because I am writing a believing/doubting essay which explores the pros and cons of the effect social media has on politics and society in general. This is such a useful article because Anderson is practically writing about the same topics that I am and, he too, explored the pros and cons. He talked about how politicians nowadays use social media more frequently than they ever have before. Back in the day, Franklin D Roosevelt used fireside chats to address his people, now we see Donald Trump going crazy with his twitter fingers. Politicians use social media to promote themselves now more than they ever have. Anderson provides great points that support both sides of the argument which makes this such a useful article for me.

Bolter, Jay David. “Social Media Are Ruining Political Discourse.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 20 May 2019, Jay David Bolter.

This article by Jay David Bolter discusses the cons of social media and what it is doing to our society. It is relevant to my topic because it will give me information that I can use when talking about how social media has had negative effects on our society. Bolter goes into detail about echo chambers and how social media contributes to them. An echo chamber is when you are hearing the information from a biased source that will only tell you what you want to hear. For example, most people who are Republican’s will follow networks such as Fox news and they will only see and hear information that supports that side of the political spectrum. Bolter believes that the problem that arises with social media is that a lot of people use it as their main source of information. He says that 68 percent of Americans receive at least some of their news from social media. This means that a lot of our potential voters are prone to being sucked into these echo chambers of social media.

Kleinnijenhuis, Jan. “The Combined Effects of Mass Media and Social Media on Political Perceptions and Preferences.” Journal of Communication, 23 Dec. 2019, Jan Kleinnijenhuis.

This is a credible article written by Jan Kleinnijenhuis that ironically speaks towards the discredibility of information you receive on social media. This will help me make my points about both sides of the argument in my believing/doubting essay. I will use the angle that explains how just about anybody can go on social media and write whatever they would like to. This makes social media a misleading source of information that tries to trick people into believing fake news. This obviously preaches to the idea that social media is unproductive in politics and in society. I can also twist this and say that anybody being able to speak their mind can be helpful for society. Being able to talk through tough times like we are experiencing currently can be helpful for people. These points that were made will gel with the points I have made in my own essay which makes this source beneficial to me.

Muirhead, Richard. “Technology as a Force for Division - and Unification - in Politics.” TechCrunch, TechCrunch, 27 Nov. 2016, Richard Muirhead.

This article was probably the most beneficial to my essay because it is a believing/doubting commentary essay in itself. You can recognize this in the title by looking at the type of words the author decided to use. First, Murihead said technology was a dividing force in politics, but then he went on to say that it was also a unifying force as well. The author of this article, like many others, writes about the idea of echo chambers, and how people tend to interact with the people and narratives they already agree with which creates polarization. This speaks towards the dividing force of politics. He talks about the unifying side of his argument by talking about the benefits social media has on politics. He talks about how it has become much easier to be more politically active thanks to social media. He also proposes the idea that social media has made it a lot easier for people to register to vote. Both of these arguments will help make my essay stronger.

Ramgobin, Ryan. “9/11 Brought a Country Together - 15 Years Later It Could Not Be More Divided.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 6 Sept. 2016, Ryan Ramgobin.

When you look at the title of this article, you may be wondering how I implemented it into my essay. It is odd that a connection was drawn between 911 and the effects social media has on society. This article wasn’t that relevant to my essay as a whole, but it helped me make a very crucial point in a body paragraph of mine. I drew the comparison between life after 911 when social media wasn’t as prevalent and how our country came together, to now when we are also facing chaos, but how our country has divided. People go on social media frequently with the intention to divide, so this article helped me make that point about how social media divides. As I said before, this article wasn’t used much throughout my essay as a whole, but it helped me make a very important point with a quote I used, therefore, it is relevant to my topic.

2 notes · View notes

letmetellyouaboutmyfeels · 4 years

Note

Okay, if it's too much, don't answer that's fine. I'm not American and I've read so many different things about the political stuff that's going down over there, some saying Biden is the same as Trump, some say he's even better than Bernie. I got not clue how to sort that Joe Biden guy, sooo... Could you help us non Americans out a little? So far it's just looking like everyone is standing around a dumpster fire, shouting stuff that's not really comprehensible

Jesus Christ this was something to wake up to this morning. I’m gonna be honest, it’s not my job to educate you or anyone else on this matter, you’re all adults (supposedly, I’m doubtful about a lot of you) and Google exists. But I also understand that it can be intimidating to dive into the wide world of the internet and it feels easier to ask someone you trust or feel that you know, so I’ll do my best to be concise and explain.

Everyone is standing around a dumpster fire shouting stuff that’s not comprehensible because people, my darling, are idiots.

“No, Mads, people aren’t idiots!” A person is not an idiot. But people are. Put us in a group and we’ll happily self destruct in the most spectacular fashion possible.

Biden is nowhere near the same as Trump, people just live in an echo chamber and refuse to look at the facts. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you how awful Trump is. It baffles me that people are saying Biden, who happily supported Barack Obama and played second fiddle to him for eight years, is the same as the man who’s putting children in cages.

Here is a breakdown of Biden’s policy plans should he be elected. Very different from Trump’s, as you can see. To quote this post here:

“It's important to be critical of political figures, especially during a primary election. Joe Biden has been in politics for a very long time, and his record is by no means spotless. There's lots to criticize, politically and personally. But having Biden in the big chair instead of Trump changes the entire game.

Look at it this way: if Joe Biden wins, a democratic Congress gets a clear path to passing real, lasting progressive laws. If Joe Biden wins, Ruth Bader Ginsburg gets to retire, and be replaced by a young firebrand who will make Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh's lives a living hell for the next 40 years. If Joe Biden wins, all of the horrible executive orders Trump has enacted are gone, on day one: family seperation, abortion bans in VA hospitals, EPA funding gutted, global warming denial in NOAA, removal of LGBT+ protections, all GONE in January 2021. If Joe Biden wins, all the Trump shills in the government disappear: I'm talking about new people in the CPB, the Justice Department, the FTC, and everything other federal agency. With Biden instead of Trump, we're going to be fighting for Medicare for All vs. Obamacare, instead of Keeping Obamacare vs. Stripping Away Any Kind of Federal Insurance. We're going to be fighting for the Green New Deal vs. Having a Functional EPA, instead of Gutting The EPA or Having No EPA At All. The fight is way different, and we get to pull the conversation further left - where it belongs.

This election is just as much about getting rid of the Republican stench in the Oval Office as it is electing a particular person. So yeah, be critical of Joe Biden, but please don't lose sight of what President Joe Biden would actually look like versus President Trump.”

People seem to be forgetting that when you vote for president, you are, supposedly, not voting for One Supreme Leader Who Makes All The Decisions Ever. Putting Biden in the Oval Office is more about putting in a man who will pass the laws that a liberal, democratic Congress will put in front of him. A man who will actually listen to his advisors. It’s about putting in someone who won’t appoint a bunch of judges that will screw over everyone for the next, oh, three decades.

I don’t want Biden in office. I wanted Elizabeth Warren, for fuck’s sake. Whose policies were the same as Bernie’s, by the way, for all you bros out there who say you aren’t sexist. The last thing I want is another old white man, for the love of whatever you worship. But the idea that someone who supported and worked under someone like Obama is somehow the same as a Neo-fascist egomaniac is... ridiculous. It’s truly ridiculous. Not that Obama was perfect, far from it, but under his presidency we were making progress on things and my God, I wasn’t scared for the lives of just about everyone I know.

As for Biden versus Sanders, the argument that Biden is better stems from the fact that while Sanders has helped move the party left with his presidential campaigns and he makes pretty speeches, he hasn’t actually done anything in all his time serving as an elected public official. If you actually go and look at his track record, he hasn’t passed many laws or helped enact a whole lot of others. Everyone’s making a big deal about how he “saved millions of lives” with his big speech but actually, sorry kids, politics are not Hollywood and you don’t save the day by making a speech and miraculously everyone votes on something. Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado and Schumer actually talked to people, convinced them on it, and got the votes that secured the unemployment bill being passed, and that’s what saved lives, not someone yelling (no matter how passionate or eloquent their yelling is).

It’s great to yell about how the system is corrupt etc but you have to actually follow those words with actions, and Sanders, historically, is not good about compromising, working with others, reaching out to others, being on a team. And that’s exactly what you need to be able to do in politics to get anything done. There’s an episode of Leverage called “The Gimme a K Job,” where Sophie spends the entire time running back and forth between politicians getting them to compromise and quid pro quo for one another so she can get them to vote on a law. I recommend watching it. The situation is played for laughs, but it’s also brutally honest. You cannot get anything done in politics (or in a lot of things in life) if you aren’t willing to work together and bargain and give some to get some, and Sanders isn’t, and that’s not good.

Now, Sanders has done a lot in his presidential campaign to move the Dem party left and he’s really stirred up younger voters, and those are both good things. If you look at Biden’s policies in the post I linked, you’ll see a lot of them are more liberal than most people expected, and that’s probably because Biden and his team saw everyone supporting Sanders’ policies and went, “oh, okay, this is what the people want.” Which already shows that Biden is willing to listen to the people more than Trump and his party are.

And then there’s the more personal side of things. Sanders really left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth because some of his supporters were so extreme in their support of him, to the point of acting like he’s the only person who could possibly save us, when honestly that’s not how democracy (or socialism, frankly) works. The whole idea is that all of us, working together as a movement, are what makes change. The people all standing up together and demanding that lawmakers do this, that, and the other thing. Sanders extremists, known as “Bernie Bros,” acting like Sanders is their One True Savior has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. In my experience, people don’t like being shouted at and told they’re idiots. And in my experience, one single person isn’t going to save you. And nobody’s perfect so furthermore acting like someone is perfect is only going to annoy everyone else around you and set you up for disappointment down the line.

There are a lot of people out there feeling attacked by Sanders supporters, and so frankly, they’re glad to see the back of him and throw support behind Biden, because they’re just sick of dealing with his extremist followers.

If you want to tear the system down completely then gold star to you, but the fact is otherwise you have to work within the system to change it. And I don’t see any of these people yelling on the internet actually doing the work to organize a revolution. It’s fun to yell about your opinions, it helps you feel better, it helps you feel powerful and heard. But the real work is done in volunteering, in protesting, in running for local offices, in doing research and then voting for your mayor, your governor, your senator, your state representative. Those people, as the COVID-19 epidemic is proving, actually often have more direct power to help or harm you than the President does.

People have more power than they think, but they’re just refusing to use it, and they’re refusing to think critically and to do research on the policies of candidates. I’ve seen people calling Biden a “serial rapist,” for crying out loud, which, whether he assaulted a woman or not, is not true. That’s like if I killed one person and suddenly everyone was calling me a mass murderer. People like to exaggerate, to bloviate, and to think in black and white. It’s disappointing, but true.

One final thought, for both you and actual Americans: look at how non-Americans are viewing the United States election. We are not the center of the universe (although we like to pretend we are) but we do have a huge impact on the global stage, and other countries are begging us to elect someone other than Trump. You want to claim we’re not the stereotype of the selfish, self-centered American? Than put your money where your mouth is and look at the non-Americans who are asking us to please, please, please elect someone else. Do it for them, if nothing else. The world is bigger than just us.

Biden isn’t perfect. One could argue one way or another on the Sanders v. Biden debate. It really depends on your personal opinion. But when it comes to Trump v. Biden, it really shouldn’t be rocket science. One of them has allowed racism, sexism, and xenophobia to thrive. He’s literally responsible for thousands of deaths (and counting) through his mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic. He’s backed us out of the planet-saving environmental agreement that everyone else agreed to. He’s enabled corrupt, selfish politicians to have their way. He would appoint judges that will strike down everything from refugees to abortion rights. He’s destroyed our international relations, nearly started a war, and I actually don’t think he knows how to read.

And his name’s Trump.

That’s the difference.

#mads answers things #politics #this is the one and only time I am explaining this #all other questions will simply get a link to this post #yokoo-chan98

18 notes · View notes

phroyd · 5 years

Link

We literally have an “Alternative-Fact Media Network, feeding millions of people out-right misinformation, and there is nothing illegal about it! - Phroyd

Mark Levin, the talk radio host who has been one of President Trump’s most ardent defenders, tried to offer his listeners some reassurance this week as they processed the dizzying developments in Washington. “There’s a lot of disinformation and misinformation,” he warned. “I’m here to help us walk through this and defend this nation against a tyranny in our midst.”

Rush Limbaugh cast himself in a similar light — part fact checker, part coach rallying the team at halftime. “You’re going to know everything you need to know about this latest faux scandal,” he promised, adding, “Everything you’re seeing is deception.”

Even Michael Savage, a conservative host who has been critical of the president at times, joined in circling the wagons. “There is a war going on right now,” he told his audience this week, adding, “They haven’t given up trying to destroy us.”

With the president facing an impeachment inquiry, and a whistle-blower report made public Thursday that raised new questions about whether he tried to cover up his efforts to enlist Ukraine’s help in discrediting a political rival, allies of the White House in the pro-Trump media wasted no time constructing their own version of events.

Their narrative omits key facts, like Mr. Trump’s entreaty to the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky: “I would like you to do us a favor.” It portrays the president’s political opponents and the mainstream media as contemptible and corrupt persecutors, blinded by hatred and their failure to bring him down so far. “Russia, Russia, Russia. Racism, racism. And recession. And now it’s going to be Ukraine,” Jeanine Pirro, a friend and fierce defender of Mr. Trump said on the Fox Business channel.

Their words echo those of the president himself, who once declared, “What you are seeing and what you are reading is not what’s happening,” and beseeched his followers to “stick with us,” and not to believe what “you see from these people, the fake news.”

The potential political benefit is significant. Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Levin and Sean Hannity have a combined weekly radio audience of nearly 42 million listeners. Combined with the programming on Fox News and stories from Trump-friendly outlets like Rasmussen Reports, which publishes a daily tracking poll of the president’s approval ratings that is typically several percentage points higher than other surveys, the conservative media is wrapping Mr. Trump and his supporters in a security blanket of their own facts, data points and story lines about the Ukraine controversy.

“It’s victory at the expense of truth,” said Michael Harrison, the publisher of Talkers Magazine, which tracks the talk radio industry. The desire to win the argument and the election, he added, has resulted in media where “you don’t hear debate anymore; it’s just preaching to the choir.”

In the world of conservative media, Mr. Trump is a popular, unbeatable figure. In reality, his numbers in the Gallup presidential approval poll have never climbed above 46 percent (he is the first president never to reach 50 percent in their survey, which dates back to Harry Truman). His campaign’s internal numbers have shown him losing badly to former Vice President Joseph R. Biden in key battleground states. Mr. Trump has dismissed the numbers as “fake polls.”

A common defense from the right has been to flip the criticism and accuse liberals of fabricating their own reality. Mr. Levin, who has a Sunday evening Fox News show in addition to his daily radio show, said this week that Democrats and the mainstream media had created an “unreality” that was designed to “humiliate the president, to try and dispirit you, and to drag down his poll numbers and defeat him.”

The president’s media defenders often characterize the investigations and media coverage not merely as political attacks on Mr. Trump but as a culture war against people who support him.

Mr. Savage was one of Mr. Trump’s first talk radio boosters during his 2016 campaign. But he had been publicly doubting the presidentand criticizing him for failing to keep promises like building a wall on the southern border. The issue of impeachment has helped reignite Mr. Savage’s passions.

“It’s not about Trump is it?” he said on his show. “It’s about us. It’s about our love for America. It’s about our love for our own borders, language and culture.”

Richard Nixon played to similar “us versus them” grievances during the Watergate investigations and also blamed the media, which he said “hate my guts with a passion.” That approach helped keep a sizable chunk of Americans behind him even when he resigned. Roughly a quarter of Americans said at the time that Nixon’s conduct was not serious enough to warrant resignation,polls showed.

Nixon, of course, had nothing like the pro-Trump media to defend him. Talk radio in its current format, with its heavy tilt toward conservative provocateurs, did not develop until the 1990s. In Nixon’s day, cable news was still a few years away and the most popular hosts on the radio talked about subjects like extraterrestrial activity.

Mr. Trump’s allies repeatedly invoke the special counsel investigation into his campaign’s dealings with Russia during the 2016 election, which failed to produce the smoking gun-type revelations that many on the left had predicted. The president’s critics, they say, are once again engaging in a smear campaign to declare him guilty before all the evidence is out.

As Mr. Savage said on Wednesday, “He is already in the hay wagon on the way to the guillotine because of the fascist vermin in the media.”

They also appear to have learned an important lesson about how Mr. Trump and his attorney general, William P. Barr, managed the narrative of the release of the special counsel report: They are moving fast to tell the story on their terms. And that is a story in which Mr. Biden and his son Hunter Biden — not Mr. Trump — have covered up wrongdoing involving their Ukrainian interests.

Mr. Hannity, whose radio show each day begins with an announcer declaring that he is “Fighting the Trump-hating liberal media one day at a time,” called the Biden angle “the real story.”

Mr. Limbaugh told listeners, “Joe Biden may be the most corrupt politician in Washington bar none.” Then he offered a novel theory of the origins of the Ukraine-Trump investigations. “This effort going on here is actually a twofer,’’ he said. “It is designed by the Democrats to take out both Trump and Biden and clear the way for anybody else, probably Elizabeth Warren.”

Mr. Trump has also characterized the investigations as a Democratic conspiracy to weaken his standing, which he said is formidable. “Democrats feel they’re going to lose,” he said on Wednesday, pointing to Rasmussen numbers that had his approval rating at 53 percent, which he insisted was too low. “They say you could add ten to it. A lot of people say you can add more than ten to it,” Mr. Trump said.

On Fox Business this week, Ms. Pirro made a similar point. Democrats, she said, were going to “shoot themselves in the foot and he’s going to win in 2020, and that’s the end of that chapter.”

Lou Dobbs, another friend of the president’s and Fox host, smiled and agreed. “That’s a pretty good chapter for America if he does indeed. And he will.”

Phroyd

#limbaugh #rush #fox #alternate facts #drumph

15 notes · View notes

cksmart-world · 4 years

Text

The completely unnecessary news analysis

by Christopher Smart

February 18, 2020

BERNIE BROS BE PISSED & WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE ERA

Supporters of Bernie Sanders are more than a little chafed at other Democrats who are taking an “anyone-but-Bernie” stance and they're letting folks know in no uncertain terms: “you A-holes.” Supporters of Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Klobachar, Warren and Biden say Bernie can't beat Trump because the Name-Caller-In-Chief will label him as a Marxist dog and scare the bejesus out of voters. Many also say Mayor Pete can't beat Trump because he's gay. Rush Limbaugh already has started in on Buttigieg for kissing his husband in public. Oh, Lordy. Evangelicals are hugging their Bibles. Elizabeth Warren has dropped in the polls, largely because she has a plan for just about everything and that's confusing to American voters who hate details. They're more into stuff like, “Make America Great Again.” Poor Joe Biden has hit the skids, too. Old Joe's jokes have gotten stale and aviator sunglasses have gone out of style. Amy Klobuchar is a good, Midwestern woman with a nice smile who knows how to milk a cow. But she's a little too nice and doesn't have the money that Michael Bloomberg has. And now we find out that the New York billionaire had the horribly racist “Stop-N-Frisk” policing policy when he was mayor of the Big Apple, so he can't get the African-American vote. And it's just been revealed that Bloomberg hates babies and puppies. But hey, don't lose hope: The staff here at Smart Bomb has come up with a bumpersticker for Dems: “Miracles Do Happen.”

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE ERA

It's been 48 years since the Equal Rights Amendment was submitted to Congress in October 1971. It passed both houses and was ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states. But it died after a decade of fierce debate. The arguments in the Beehive State were as contentious as anywhere. In the end, Utah did not ratify. Why not? What's wrong with an amendment that seeks equal rights for women and men? Our crack research team here at Smart Bomb dove into the archives to find the answers then and now:

1 – If the ERA becomes law, women will have to use urinals.

2 – If the ERA becomes law, men will have to wear bras and lipstick and fix dinner.

3 – God created special roles for men and women: men wear pants and drink beer; women wear skirts and drink tea (and don't belch).

4 – If the ERA passes, women will have to go into combat and share foxholes with horny men without condoms who are trained to kill.

5 – If the ERA is ratified, women can become president. Yikes!

6 – If the ERA becomes law, workplace sex could cease to exist.

7 – Or, it could mean that workplace sex would get out of control with women jumping men in the utility closet. OMG.

8 – If the ERA becomes a reality, young Mormon women will go on religious missions.

9 – If the ERA is ratified, women will become astronauts and orbit the Earth and feel superior to men.

10 – And the very worst part of the ERA, according to Utah Sen. Mike Lee, is that it is part of a “radical pro-abortion agenda.” Yeah, damnit, it's “an Orwellian mischaracterization of what it would do,” Lee said, because it will allow women to have abortions but not men.

HEY, ALEXA, GET OUT OF MY FACE

Your friend Alexa, who helps you play music, turn off the TV and put on the bedroom lights, may not be as warm-hearted you think. Amazon has big plans for its virtual assistant. Sooner than you think, Alexa — or one of her siblings — will be directing our lives — it’ll interpret our data and make decisions for us, according to Rohit Prasad, the scientist in charge of Alexa‘s development. George Orwell was distressed about Big Brother, but he couldn't imagine we would willingly invite him or Big Sister into our lives with such giddy anticipation. The aim is to turn Alexa into an omnipresent companion that shapes our lives. You might find yourself in an argument with Alexa on what music to play or what to watch on TV or which car to buy. Yep, it's “2001: A Space Odyssey” all over again. HAL has collected all your data and now, there is no real reason for you to exist — well wait, Alexa does want your money, but you don't have to worry your lil’ head about that, she'll tell you how to spend it.

BILL BARR: I WON'T BE BULLIED

He's a strong, independent attorney general. President Donald Trump doesn't tell him what to do (except sometimes). Sure, there was that little thing with the Mueller Report that looked to nonpartisan legal beagles like a roadmap to impeachment that Barr announced was vindication. And there is that little matter of reviewing Michael Flynn's case, where he pleaded guilty to the FBI about his contacts with Russians. And just because the attorney general determined that Roger Stone's recommended sentence was far too harsh, doesn't mean he isn't independent. The fact that Trump tweeted the same thing 12 hours earlier was just a coincidence. Bill Barr is a man of great integrity, depending, of course, on how you define it. OK, maybe critics, who say the Department of Justice is being politicized, have a point. But as President Trump insisted, he can do whatever he wants, including interceding in criminal trials, so it isn't corruption. Whether Bill Barr is an independent attorney general or not, really doesn't matter. (Well, actually it does matter but WTF.) And the president wants to know why that slut Andrew McCabe is off the hook. And why aren't James Comey, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in jail along with Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff? Where is the justice?

Post Script — That was the week that was. And man, was it strange — that is to say, about normal for the age of Trump. Still, there is no better time to be a “Hooker For Jesus.” (We are not making this up.) DOJ officials rejected grant applications from Catholic Charities and Chicanos Por La Causa. Instead, according to Reuters, it gave more than $1 million to the Lincoln Tubman Foundation and Hookers for Jesus. Don't tell the Evangelicals, they'll freak. Speaking of sinners, Jim Jordan, the rabid congressman from Ohio, is about to be caught up in a sex scandal involving his old wrestling team at Ohio State. Bummer (no pun intended). And the hits just keep coming: Michael Avenatti, who gained fame representing Stormy Daniels, was found guilty of trying to extort $25 million from Nike. But unlike Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, he can't expect a pardon from Donald Trump. Down on the southern border, those darn coyotes already have come up with a new “camouflage ladder” to smuggle people and drugs over Trump's new border wall. The contraptions, made of old, rusted construction rebar, make the climb easy and can't be detected by cameras. Meanwhile, Trump has diverted another $3.8 billion in military funds for his signature achievement. (Mexico won't pay. Duh.) There's more — Trump is dispatching border patrol agents to Sanctuary Cities to root out them horrible immigrants who are doing all our scut work. Adn last but far from least, here in Utah, state legislators are feeling oh so generous after increasing from 0 to 25 percent Salt Lake City's share of property taxes from the Inland Port. That's better than a jab with a sharp stick, but not so charitable when you consider the city should get 100 percent of taxes from its own, damn land. And so it goes.

OK, Wilson, maybe you and the band can take us out with a little something hopeful for our immigrant friends and all the Democrats and everyone else who is on the verge of a nervous breakdown in the age of Trump:

Well, the oppressors are trying to keep me down / Trying to drive me underground / And they think that they have got the battle won / I say forgive them Lord, they know not what they've done / 'Cause, as sure as the sun will shine / I'm gonna get my share now, what's mine / And then the harder they come / The harder they fall, one and all / Ooh, the harder they come / Harder they fall, one and all...

2 notes · View notes

bountyofbeads · 4 years

Text

Romney votes to convict Trump on charge of abuse of power, becoming the lone Republican to break ranks

By Dan Balz and Robert Costa | Published February 05 at 7:16 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted Feb 05, 2020

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) sealed a place in history Wednesday by voting to convict President Trump of abuse of power, becoming a lone voice of dissent in a Republican Party that otherwise has marched in lockstep with the president throughout the impeachment proceedings.

Romney voted against the second article of impeachment, which accused the president of obstruction of Congress. But on the first article, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee said that he found the evidence against Trump overwhelming and the arguments by the president’s defense ultimately unconvincing.

Romney’s decision, announced in a deeply personal speech on the Senate floor where he spoke of his faith and constitutional duty, sparked an immediate and intense outcry among Trump’s supporters — fury that Romney acknowledged is unlikely to fade.

Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, called for Romney to be “expelled” from the GOP, while many of Trump’s congressional allies cast him as a bitter and irrelevant relic of a Republican establishment that has all but crumbled before Trump in recent years.

Romney stood by his decision as Republican criticism mounted on Wednesday, maintaining that Trump abused his office by pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political rival.

“I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability, believing that my country expected it of me,” Romney said in his floor remarks, calling Trump’s conduct “grievously wrong.”

Romney added, “We’re all footnotes at best in the annals of history. But in the most powerful nation on earth, the nation conceived in liberty and justice, that is distinction enough for any citizen.”

Romney’s vote — coming after other centrist GOP senators such as Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) decided to acquit Trump even as they scolded him for acting inappropriately — was hailed by many Democrats as an example of unflinching political courage from a Republican they have long battled.

Following Romney’s speech, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), walked off the Senate floor in tears and remained speechless for several seconds.

“He literally restored my faith in the institution,” Schatz said.

Presidential historian Jon Meacham said Romney is an “emblem of what so many of us feared was an entirely vanished kind of moderate voice that is guided by reason and not passion. What he did was in the tradition of Dwight Eisenhower, his own father, and George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford.”

Romney’s father, the late Michigan governor George Romney, was a prominent Republican who was known for being guided by his Mormon faith and a commitment to public service and civil rights. Romney does not speak often of his father, but is inspired by his example far more than he discusses publicly, friends said Wednesday.

“There’s no question that the president asked a foreign power to investigate his political foe,” Romney said in an interview with The Washington Post ahead of his floor statement. “That he did so for a political purpose, and that he pressured Ukraine to get them to help or to lead in this effort. My own view is that there’s not much I can think of that would be a more egregious assault on our Constitution than trying to corrupt an election to maintain power. And that’s what the president did.”

The crux of the case against Trump was the allegation that he withheld military aid and a White House meeting to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, who served on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, while his father was vice president.

Romney was one of two Republican senators who supported the effort to summon witnesses and documents. He was the only Republican who crossed party lines on Wednesday to join Democrats in voting to convict Trump on the first charge, abuse of power, while voting to acquit on the second, obstruction of Congress.

Inside the Senate GOP cloakroom, Romney’s decision was greeted with disappointment but little surprise. Ever since Romney was elected to the Senate in 2018, the 72-year-old senator has parted ways with his party at times and has occasionally criticized Trump — an approach that has won him few allies in a chamber where Trump’s political capital and favor is a prized commodity.

“He’s made it very clear from the beginning, even on the witness vote, that he was going to go his own way,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said. “This is one of those historical votes where everybody has to do what they think is the right thing.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) appeared ready to move on from the trial and did not threaten Romney.

“I was surprised and disappointed, but we have much work to do for the American people, and I think Senator Romney has been largely supportive of most everything we’ve tried to accomplish,” McConnell said.

For Romney, breaking with Trump carried not just political consequences in a party he once led as its standard-bearer, but familial dynamics. Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, the daughter of Romney’s older brother, is one of the president’s loyalists — and she firmly stood by Trump on Wednesday.

“This is not the first time I have disagreed with Mitt, and I imagine it will not be the last,” McDaniel tweeted.

The RNC also sent an email to reporters Wednesday taking aim at Romney, under the subject line, “Mitt Romney turns his back on Utah.”

Other Trump allies were far harsher in their response to Romney. “He’s now officially a member of the resistance & should be expelled” from the party, Trump Jr. tweeted.

Romney knew his vote to remove the president from office would bring consequences. Already, there is a bill in the Utah legislature that would allow voters to remove a sitting senator. Last week, the Conservative Political Action Conference disinvited Romney to their annual event. He expects worse in the days ahead.

When Romney was in Florida last weekend, a person at the airport called him a traitor, and someone else later told him to “get with the team,” followed by an epithet. “It’s going to be there a long, long, long time,” he said in the interview. “And you know, the president’s going to, you know, use me in rallies. I mean, he likes theater, and I can be part of that. So it’s going to be tough.”

Recently appointed Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), facing a tough intraparty primary fight from Rep. Douglas A. Collins (R-Ga.), has already used Romney as a foil, attacking him last week for supporting the call for witnesses.

Romney said his decision to vote to convict the president was “the hardest decision” he has ever had to make and one that he hoped he would never have to make. “When [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi indicated we’re now going to pursue impeachment, my heart sank in dread,” he said.

For a time, he thought — or at least hoped — that Trump’s request to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for an investigation into the Bidens during a July 25 phone call represented little more than a throwaway line. As more information came out, Romney came to a different and more worrisome conclusion: that the president had committed a potentially impeachable act.

“He’s the leader of my party,” Romney said of Trump. “He’s the president of the United States. I voted with him 80 percent of the time. I agree with his economic policies and a lot of other policies. And yet he did something which was grievously wrong. And to say, well, you know, because I’m on his team and I agree with him most of the time, that I should then assent to a political motive, would be a real stain on our constitutional democracy.”

Romney said he hoped the president’s defense team would present evidence during the trial that would exonerate the president. He said he even contacted the White House Counsel’s Office, through a fellow senator, asking if they would provide affidavits from officials such as former national security adviser John Bolton or acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, but to no avail.

“I was hoping beyond hope that the defense would present evidence, exculpatory evidence, that would remove from me the responsibility to vote where my conscience was telling me I had to vote,” he said. “And that’s one of the reasons, by the way, that I wanted to hear from Bolton, which is I hoped he would testify and raise reasonable doubt.”

Romney dismissed arguments that a president could be impeached only if there were a statutory crime, calling that “absurd on its face,” and saying he could not think of “a more egregious assault on our constitutional system than corrupting an election and getting a foreign power to do it for you.” What Trump tried to do, he said, is “what autocrats do in tinhorn countries.”

He also dismissed the arguments that the president was justified in asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. He said the former vice president might have been guilty of a conflict of interest, but added that a conflict of interest is “a matter of judgment, but it’s not a crime.” As for Hunter Biden, he said, “He got a lot of money for his father’s name. That’s unsavory. But again, it’s not a crime.”

Romney acknowledging that Trump threw up “a barrage of efforts” to keep the House from receiving documents or testimony from key administration officials with firsthand knowledge, but decided against supporting the obstruction charge. “I don’t think that was an appropriate approach, necessarily,” he said, “but [Trump] did follow the law, and the House did not take the time to go to the courts as I think they should have.”

Some of Romney’s Republican colleagues have suggested that the issue should be left to the voters in this year’s election, rather than having the Senate render judgment. Romney said his reading of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers led him to conclude that the Senate must make the decision.

“The Constitution doesn’t say that if the president did something terribly wrong, let the people decide in the next election what should happen,” he said. “It says if the president does something terribly wrong, the Senate shall try him. And so the Constitution is plain.”

Romney said he made his decision knowing that the president would be acquitted by the Senate. Were mine the deciding vote” to remove Trump from office, he said, “I hope I would have the strength of character to cast that vote. That would be the right thing to do.” He added at another point, “No one wants to vote to remove a president of the United States, and I sure don’t.”

Romney said the question of Trump’s fate now will go be decided in the November election. “It’s going to go to the people, and they will make the final decision,” he said, adding that he is “highly confident” the president will be reelected. “Given the strength of the economy and the record established so far, I believe he gets reelected. And I think if they [Democrats] nominate [Sen.] Bernie [Sanders of Vermont] or [Sen.] Elizabeth [Warren of Massachusetts], he’ll get elected in a landslide.”

Yet in a later season of a political life that began at the side of George Romney, Romney said he kept coming back to questions of duty and faith.

“Again, how do I say before God, ‘I agreed to render impartial justice and let the consequences for me personally outweigh my duty to God and my duty to be to the country that I love?’” Romney said, explaining how he settled on his vote. “That’s simply putting my head down and saying what was done was perfect — there’s nothing to see here. [It] was not something I could do.”

______

Paul Kane and Mike DeBonis contributed to this report.

**********

HOUSE MANAGERS: TRUMP WON’T BE VINDICATED. THE SENATE WON’T BE, EITHER.

By Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, Hakeem Jeffries, Val Demings, Sylvia Garcia and Jason Crow

February 05 at 5:29 PM EST

Reps. Adam Schiff (Calif.), Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Zoe Lofgren (Calif.), Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), Val Demings (Fla.), Sylvia Garcia (Tex.) and Jason Crow (Colo.) were the Democratic House managers in the impeachment trial of President Trump.

Over the past two weeks, we have argued the impeachment case against President Trump, presenting overwhelming evidence that he solicited foreign interference to cheat in the next election and jeopardized our national security by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance to pressure Ukraine to do his political bidding. When the president got caught and his scheme was exposed, he tried to cover it up and obstruct Congress’s investigation in an unprecedented fashion. As the trial progressed, a growing number of Republican senators acknowledged that the House had proved the president’s serious misconduct.

Throughout the trial, new and incriminating evidence against the president came to light almost daily, and there can be no doubt that it will continue to emerge in books, in newspapers or in congressional hearings. Most important, reports of former national security adviser John Bolton’s forthcoming book only further confirm that the president illegally withheld military aid to Ukraine until Kyiv announced the sham investigations that the president sought for his political benefit.

Although Bolton told the House that he would sue rather than appear to testify pursuant to a subpoena, he appeared to have a change of heart and made it clear that he would be willing to testify in the Senate. Yet, rather than hear what Bolton had to say, Republican senators voted to hold the first impeachment trial in U.S. history without a single live witness or new document.

Notwithstanding the Constitution’s mandate that the Senate shall have the sole power to “try” impeachments, a narrow majority of senators opted not to, and instead acted as though it were an appellate court precluded from going beyond the record in the House. Nothing supported this unprecedented prohibition on witnesses and documents, except the overriding interest of a president determined to hide any further incriminating information from the American people and a Senate majority leader in his thrall.

Instead, the president’s defenders resorted to a radical theory that would validate his worst, most authoritarian instincts. They argued that a president cannot abuse his power, no matter how corrupt his conduct, if he believes it will benefit his reelection. The Founders would have been aghast at such a sweeping assertion of absolute power, completely at odds with our system of checks and balances. Even some of the president’s lawyers were ultimately forced to back away from it.

And so, at last, the president’s team urged that it should be left to the voters to pronounce judgment on the president’s misconduct, even as it worked to prevent the public from learning the full facts that might inform their decision. More ominously, this leaves the president free to try to cheat in the very election that is supposed to provide the remedy for his cheating.

Just this week, with the vote on impeachment still pending before the Senate, the president’s personal lawyer and emissary, Rudolph W. Giuliani, repeated his call for Ukraine to investigate the president’s political rival and urged the president to carry on seeking such illicit help.

When we made our final arguments to the Senate, we asked whether there was one Republican senator who would say enough, do impartial justice as their oath required, and convict the president.

And there was. Mitt Romney. The senator from Utah showed a level of moral courage that validated the Founders’ faith that we were up to the rigors of self-governance.

No one can seriously argue that President Trump has learned from this experience. This was not the first time he solicited foreign interference in his election, nor will it be the last. As we said during the trial, if left in office, the president will not stop trying to cheat in the next election until he succeeds.

We must make sure he does not.

Republican leadership in the Senate had the power to conceal the president’s full misconduct during the trial by disallowing witnesses and documents, but they cannot keep the full, ugly truth of the president’s conduct, and that of all the president’s men, from the American people. Not for long.

Because of the impeachment process, voters can now stand forewarned of the lengths to which the president will go to try to secure his reelection, violating the law and undermining our national security and that of our allies.

By denying the American people a fair trial, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also deprived the president of something that he desperately sought — exoneration. There can be no exoneration without a legitimate trial. Out of fear of what they would learn, the Senate refused to hold one. The president will not be vindicated, and neither will the Senate, certainly not by history.

The Constitution is a wondrous document, but it is not self-effectuating; it requires vigilance, and a pledge by every new generation of voters and public servants to safeguard and fulfill its lofty promise. And it requires a kind of courage that Robert F. Kennedy once said is more rare than that on the battlefield — moral courage. Without it, no constitution can save us, but with it, no hardship can overcome us. We remain committed to doing everything in our power to preserve this marvelous experiment in self-governance.

America is worth it.

*********

It’s not over. Congress must continue to hold Trump accountable.

By Editorial Board | Published February 05 at 4:34 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted February 05, 2020 |

SOME OF the senators who voted Wednesday to acquit President Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress claimed he had surely been chastened by his impeachment by the House of Representatives. We suspect they know better. Not only is Mr. Trump brazenly unrepentant for his attempt to extort Ukraine’s help for his reelection, but also he is likely to take the Senate’s vote as vindication and license for further improper actions. That makes it incumbent upon responsible members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, to do what they can to protect the integrity of the November election, as well as that of the Constitution.

An initial step could be a resolution of censure by the Senate. That wouldn’t remove Mr. Trump, but it would challenge Republicans who say they regard his actions as “inappropriate” to vote accordingly. If they do, it might have a deterrent effect. If they don’t, voters will have cause to judge those senators up for reelection this year. A bipartisan censure motion would make it difficult for Mr. Trump to go on claiming he had done “absolutely nothing wrong” and that the case against him was “a hoax.”

In the House, committees that pursued the investigation of Mr. Trump’s actions in Ukraine should continue to do so. There is much that remains unknown, including whether the president extracted favors in 2017 and 2018 from Ukraine’s previous government. There is also a public interest in the airing of evidence that the White House has illegitimately suppressed about the pressure campaign against the current president, Volodymyr Zelensky. The House should subpoena former national security adviser John Bolton, along with documents related to Mr. Trump’s withholding of military aid from Mr. Zelensky’s government.

If court battles are needed to obtain this evidence, the House should fight them. It is vital that Congress’s power to conduct oversight of the executive be confirmed. Otherwise, Mr. Trump can be expected to continue a blanket refusal to cooperate with congressional investigations during the remainder of his time in office, thereby neutering what should be an equal branch of government.

Above all, legislators, the media and patriotic government officials must remain on guard against new attempts by Mr. Trump to subvert democracy. The president has publicly called on China as well as Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden, and has said he would accept dirt on an opponent if it were offered by a foreign government. There’s no reason to believe that Russia, Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian regimes favored by Mr. Trump won’t try to help his campaign, as Russia did in 2016.

If evidence of such interference or other wrongdoing emerges, Congress must not hesitate to pursue it. Mr. Trump’s supporters crow that the impeachment investigation backfired politically, boosting the president’s poll ratings. Even if that is true, it must not deter Congress from holding the president to account. The lesson of the Ukraine affair must not be that there is no remedy for a president who would use his powers to undermine U.S. democracy.

*********

WAS IMPEACHMENT WORTH IT? YES

By Max BOOT | Published February 05 at 4:34 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted February 05, 2020 |

After 134 tumultuous days, the impeachment of President Trump ended in a predictable near-party-line acquittal by the Republican-controlled Senate. Out of 250 Republicans in Congress, only one — Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah — had the courage to vote his conscience, voting to convict on the first of the two articles. (Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, a former Republican, also supported impeachment.)

Was it worth it? As Zhou Enlai supposedly said of the French Revolution, it’s too early to say. But so far, impeachment has not lived up to either the greatest hopes or the worst fears of its advocates.

In the best-case scenario, the incontrovertible weight of evidence would have led more than one Republican to turn against the president. No one ever imagined that there would be 67 votes to remove him, but it was at least conceivable that advocates of impeachment could obtain a bare Senate majority and thus make it harder for Trump to claim that this was all a partisan plot.

That that didn’t happen is a testament to the power of political polarization, with a record-setting 87-point split between Democratic and Republican views of Trump in the latest Gallup poll. (He has the support of 94 percent of Republicans and 7 percent of Democrats.) The craven Senate Republicans were so terrified of Trump’s hold on their base that all but two of them voted against hearing from witnesses for the first time in impeachment history. Their behavior brings to mind the Nixon defender who defiantly declared: “Don’t confuse me with the facts. I’ve got a closed mind.” Wednesday’s acquittal comes despite, not because of, the evidence.

Trump emerges with higher than normal — if far from stellar — approval ratings. The latest FiveThirtyEight polling average has him at 43.4 percent approval and 52.1 percent disapproval. He has gone up in the polls recently (49 percent support him in the new Gallup poll), but this is probably because the public approves of the economy, not of his conduct. Consumer confidence in the IDB/TIPP poll is at its highest level in 16 years and the incumbent tends to get credit — which Trump was eager to claim in the State of the Union.

The good news for Trump’s opponents is that so far there is little evidence of a popular backlash against impeachment. Nearly 50 percent of the public supports impeachment and removal in the FiveThirtyEight polling average. That’s not enough to drive him out of office. But it is actually slightly higher than the number (46 percent) who wanted President Richard M. Nixon convicted in July 1974, just a few weeks before he resigned, and it’s far higher than support for impeaching President Bill Clinton, which topped out at a paltry 35 percent.

The Economist/YouGov poll shows that, by 50 percent to 34 percent, Americans think Trump is guilty of withholding military aid to Ukraine to force an investigation of the Bidens and, by 48 percent to 39 percent, they think he is guilty of obstructing Congress. By an even larger margin, respondents in recent polls said the Senate should call witnesses. The Republicans’ failure to do so denies Trump the full exoneration he craves.

The public isn’t rallying to Trump and the Republicans as they rallied to Clinton and the Democrats after impeachment in 1999 because what Trump did was far worse than lying about sex. In those days, Clinton’s popularity shot up to 73 percent and the Democrats’ advantage in party identification expanded to 17 points. By contrast, the RealClearPolitics polling average for a generic congressional ballot, showing a 7-point advantage for Democrats, is now nearly identical to the average of polls taken right before the 2018 midterm election.

In short, impeachment hasn’t fundamentally altered the political dynamics — and its impact is likely to dissipate even more before the election. Impeachment could have its biggest impact on House Democrats in red districts and Senate Republicans in blue states, but opinions of Trump are so entrenched that it doesn’t seem likely to leave a lasting mark on the presidential race one way or the other.

I still believe impeachment was the right thing to do, because it brought out so much evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing — even without the testimony of important witnesses such as John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney. Even five of the senators voting to acquit acknowledge that Trump did something wrong. They just don’t care. Now it will be up to the voters to decide if it matters to them or not.

I’m resigned to the likelihood that Trump’s outrageous abuse of office won’t prevent him from winning a second term. But I don’t think there’s much House Democrats could or should have done differently. Ignoring Trump’s attempt to rig the election wasn’t a serious option and pushing for censure wouldn’t have been any more successful in winning bipartisan support. Sure, Trump may be emboldened after he’s acquitted — but he also would have been emboldened if there had been no consequences at all once he was caught in a corrupt quid pro quo.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) and the other House managers proved their case. They did their duty with honor and eloquence. All of the vulnerable Democrats such as Sen. Doug Jones (Ala.) and the House freshmen who risked their seats to support impeachment were profiles in courage. So too were all the civil servants — beginning with the heroic whistleblower — who exposed Trump’s dirty deeds at real risk of retribution. It’s not their fault that in Trump’s America “truth” and “right” matter less than partisan might.

*********

George Conway: I believe the president, and in the president

By George T. Conway III | Published

February 05 at 11:04 AM EST | Washington Post | Posted Feb. 05, 2020

George T. Conway III is a lawyer in New York and an adviser to the Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump super PAC.

I believe the president, and in the president.

I believe the Senate is right to acquit the president. I believe a fair trial is one with no witnesses, and that the trial was therefore fair. I believe the House was unfair because it found evidence against him. I believe that if the president does something that he believes will get himself reelected, that’s in the public interest and can’t be the kind of thing that results in impeachment.

I believe former national security adviser John Bolton has no relevant testimony because he didn’t leave the White House on good terms.

I believe the president’s call was perfect. I believe he is deeply concerned about corruption in Ukraine. I believe the president can find Ukraine on a map.

I believe Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election, and that the intelligence community’s suggestion otherwise is a Deep State lie. I believe the Democratic National Committee server is in Ukraine, where CrowdStrike hid it.

I believe President Barack Obama placed a “tapp” on the president’s phones in 2016, and that the Russia investigation was a plot to keep him from winning, even though the plotters didn’t think he could win.

I believe former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was conflicted because he quit one of the president’s golf clubs, and that he and his Angry Democrats conducted a Witch Hunt to destroy the president. But I believe Mueller’s report totally exonerated the president, because it found no collusion and no obstruction.

I believe it would be okay for the president to say he grabs women by their p-----s, because he is a star, and stars are allowed to do that. But I believe he didn’t say that, even though he apologized for it, because I believe the “Access Hollywood” tape was doctored, because he said it was.

I believe E. Jean Carroll lied when she accused the president of rape, because he said she’s not his type. I believe the dozens of other women who accused him of sexual misconduct are also lying, because he would never think of grabbing them by their p-----s or anything else.

I believe the president didn’t know Michael Cohen was paying off porn star Stormy Daniels, and that Cohen did it on his own, because the president had no reason to pay her off. I believe the president was reimbursing Cohen for his legal expertise.

I believe the president is a good Christian, because TV pastors say so, and that it’s okay he doesn’t ask for God’s forgiveness, because he doesn’t need to, since he’s the Chosen One. I believe the president knows the Bible, and that two Corinthians are better than one.

I believe the president wants to release his taxes but has not because he’s under audit, which is why he has fought all the way to the Supreme Court not to disclose them. I believe he will disclose them when the audit is over, and that they will show him to be as rich and honest as he says he is.

I believe the president is a very stable genius, and that he repeatedly tells us so because it’s true.

I believe the president can spell. I believe any spelling mistakes he makes are because he’s a very busy man who doesn’t watch much TV, or because he’s intentionally triggering the libs.

I believe Hurricane Dorian was headed straight for Alabama. I believe the president’s map wasn’t altered with a Sharpie, and that if it was, he didn’t do it, since he didn’t need to because he was right.

I believe the president didn’t call Apple’s CEO “Tim Apple,” and that he said “Tim Cook of Apple” really, really fast, but that if he did say “Tim Apple,” it was to save words, which he always tries to do.

I believe windmills are bad and cause cancer. I believe there was a mass shooting in Toledo and that there were airports during the Revolution, because the president said so.

I believe the president is defeating socialism, despite the subsidies he’s paying to save farmers from his protectionism and the $3.2 trillion he’s added to the national debt during his term.

I believe the president has made tremendous progress building the wall, that Mexico paid for it in the trade deal, that the wall will soon run from San Diego to the Gulf of Mexico, that it will stop those caravans cold, and that it won’t fall down.

I believe the president has a 95 percent approval rating among Republicans, and that there’s no need to cite polls for that.

I believe the president had the largest inaugural crowd ever, regardless of what any photos from liberal bureaucrats might show.

I believe there is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.

I believe China pays all tariffs levied on imported Chinese goods.

I believe the president is truthful. I believe the Fake News media lied each of the 16,241 times they have said he has made a false or misleading claim.

I believe the president is selfless, and always puts the nation’s interests first. I believe he isn’t a narcissist, but he’d be entitled to be one if he were one. I believe the president would never exercise his presidential powers to advance his personal interests, but if he did, that would be okay, because whatever is in his personal interests is necessarily in the nation’s interests as well.

I believe Article II of the Constitution gives the president the right to do whatever he wants.(This is just the short list!!!)

*********

PELOSI RIPPED UP A SPEECH. TRUMP IS RIPPING UP OUR DEMOCRACY.

By Greg Sargent | Published February 05 at 10:07 AM EST | Washington Post | Posted February 05, 2020 |

Nancy Pelosi ripped up a copy of President Trump’s State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, and the civility police are on a rampage: On “Morning Joe,” host Willie Geist lectured that the House Speaker’s act is “not what the country needs.”

As many pointed out, Pelosi’s theatrical gesture, which came after Trump appeared to refuse to shake her hand at the outset, is tame alongside Trump’s own constant shredding of decorum — the hate rallies, the insulting of lawmakers and so forth.

But there’s a more precise point to be made here. If the underlying premise of the criticism of breaches of decorum is that they pose a threat to our democracy’s functioning, then much of what Trump has done well beyond such breaches — for three years now — actually does pose a severe threat to that functioning, while acts like Pelosi’s actually do not pose any remotely comparable threat.

This isn’t whataboutism. It’s meant to correct a massive category error. Breaches in civility are not the main threat to our political system. Indeed, if Trump only went on half-cocked rally rants and merely insulted Democrats, the current damage would not be nearly as severe.

It’s all the other misconduct that threatens the fabric of democracy — Trump’s unchecked lawlessness, his abuses of power, his public racism, his unprecedented lying, his treatment of the opposition as illegitimate.

In this context, hand-wringing about a mutual deterioration of decorum — the New York Times discerned a “mutual snubbing,” while an NBC reporter sniffed that Pelosi indulged in “antics” that are “Trumpian” — is profoundly misleading about the wildly asymmetrical realities of the moment.

Pelosi defended the gesture, describing Trump’s speech as a “manifesto of mistruths.” As it happens, Trump’s speech actually was full of lies, but for some reason this isn’t seen as a breach.

More broadly, their showdown is now being widely treated as the capstone of a troubled relationship — a “tumultuous” and “sour” one — which culminated in Trump’s impeachment.

But such descriptions won’t do. This is not a matter of Pelosi being angry at Trump for his policies and rhetoric on one side and Trump being angry at Pelosi for impeaching him on the other.

TRUMP TREATS THE OPPOSITION AS ILLEGITIMATE

When the Senate acquits Trump, it will come after Trump worked in every conceivable way to render the House an illegitimate or even nonexistent arm of the government.

No matter how vigorously Trump’s propagandists lie to the contrary, the impeachment — for extraordinary abuses of power designed to subvert our national interests to Trump’s own and corrupt our elections, the foundation of democratic government — was a legitimate exercise of constitutional authority. It was handled in a manner commensurate with the gravity of the undertaking.

The Trump administration refused to turn over any documents and laid down a blanket (but only partly successful) ban on witness cooperation. And so, Trump didn’t merely say the House’s constitutional impeachment function was illegitimate — “a coup” — he treated it as such in a manner designed to make this so.

In acquitting Trump while refusing witnesses and evidence, Senate Republicans will not only be clearing him for the article levied for this obstruction of Congress (as well as for abuse of power). They will be carrying through that delegitimization of the House’s institutional role to completion.

Team Trump argues he’s above accountability

Trump’s team has unabashedly argued throughout that Trump is not subject to legitimate accountability of any kind.

During the special counsel investigation, Trump’s lawyers argued he can close down an investigation into himself for any reason, even if it amounts to a corrupt effort to shield his wrongdoing from scrutiny. Then, during impeachment, they argued Trump cannot be impeached for abuses of power, a view widely dismissed by legal scholars.

As political theorist Will Wilkinson noted, the upshot of this is that the House lacks the “legitimate authority to second-guess anything the president does,” in effect meaning that “Democratic power is illegitimate.”

Acknowledging the legitimacy of the opposition is a hallmark of accountability in government. In allowing for it, a president in effect allows he’s not just accountable to his own voters but also to those of the opposition — such as the national majority that elected the Democratic House in 2018.

But this conception of accountability, for Trump, is simply a dead letter. Trump has delivered speeches that are literally scripted to make opposition voters disappear. He declared impeachment an affront to “the American voter,” as if only his voters, and not those who elected the House, exist.

And well before impeachment, Trump vowed to stonewall “all” House subpoenas, to protect his corrupt profiteering off the presidency — which itself is severely destructive to democracy’s functioning — through maximal resistance to legitimate congressional scrutiny.

Trump’s lawyers also argued that impeaching Trump would disenfranchise voters by denying them a choice in the next election, which is the proper mechanism of accountability. But they also claimed that in soliciting foreign interference rigging that same election, Trump did nothing wrong. In short, no political accountability mechanism for Trump is legitimate or beyond Trump’s corrupting powers.

On top of all this, there are the threats to turn loose law enforcement on political opponents; the constant racist denigration of parts of the country represented by nonwhite lawmakers (which are not mere “antics,” but tear at the country’s fabric); the nonstop lying (a form of deep contempt for the very idea of deliberative democracy) and the perpetual manipulation of government to validate lies (another form of deep contempt for government in the public interest).

I don’t claim to know whether Pelosi’s act was bad or good politics. It probably won’t matter in the least. But in this broad context, debates about an erosion in decorum are at best utterly meaningless and are at worst actively misleading about the deep hole we’re in.

*********

Here is what we can take away from Trump’s impeachment and acquittal

President Trump’s four-month-long impeachment saga is over: He was acquitted by the Senate on Wednesday on both charges, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Trump will forever have an asterisk next to his name as the third president to be impeached by the House, but he’ll remain in office. Now we’ll see a president for the first time in modern history seek reelection while carrying that asterisk.

About the Senate vote

Just as the House of Representatives did in December, the Senate voted on each article of impeachment separately. To kick Trump out of office, 67 senators needed to vote to convict him on at least one article. There was nowhere near that much support for either article.

The most important political takeaway from the vote is how partisan it was. Not a single Democrat voted to acquit the president, not even the senators representing Trump-friendly states. Only one Republican voted to convict him, Mitt Romney of Utah, after no House Republicans supported impeachment.

But Romney’s lone vote changes how Trump can talk about his impeachment going forward. He can no longer technically say his impeachment was solely driven by Democrats. One Republican — a prominent one at that — voted to convict him.

Romney voted to acquit Trump on the second charge of obstruction of Congress. His conviction vote on the first charge was historic though: He’s the first senator in an impeachment trial to vote to convict a president of the same party.

“The president’s purpose was personal and political,” Romney said in a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday announcing his vote. “Accordingly, the president is guilty of an appalling abuse of the public trust.”

Takeaways from the entire impeachment process

1. IMPEACHMENT IS POLITICALLY DRIVEN

So many readers I talked to wanted to think of impeachment as a process where blind justice reigns. And sure, there were some House Democrats who put their careers at risk by voting to impeach Trump even though their districts had supported him. Romney said he expects to be “vehemently denounced” by some in his party for his decision. (Fact check: True. Donald Trump Jr. is already driving a push to kick him out of the party.) But by and large, lawmakers voted with their political futures in mind, rather than the facts.

That’s because you can’t take the political calculus out of Congress. In fact, impeachment was designed to have an inherent contradiction. The nation’s founders set up a check on the executive, but they gave a political body — and not a court — the ultimate say on this.

The partisan process allowed Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to say the quiet part out loud, that he was working in “total coordination” with the White House on how to hold a trial that best benefited Trump. And his supporters could accurately point to instances of Democrats doing the same when their party’s president was being impeached. Democrats and privately some Republicans may truly feel that Trump should be kicked out of office, but at the end of this, their decisions were driven more by politics than conscience.

2. TRUMP’S GREATEST ASSET WAS HIS PARTY’S LOYALTY

At one point during impeachment, former Arizona Republican senator Jeff Flake told reporters he thought there would be “at least” 35 Republican senators who would vote to convict Trump if the vote were private.

We don’t know if that was true, and it obviously didn’t bear out in a public vote. But Flake got at the fundamental dynamic within the Republican Party, which is many lawmakers privately disagree with the president on policy, politics and character, but have decided their political futures rest on standing by Trump.

Party loyalty is not abnormal politics, but the degree to which Republican lawmakers have defended the president is. Trump has created an environment where there is no room for deviation from him even (or perhaps especially) on something as serious as the allegations facing him on Ukraine.

By the end of the trial, some Republican senators were forced to acknowledge that Trump did do the things the House accused him of. But they were in the minority of their party and, save Romney, still voted to acquit the president.

Flake also served as a powerful reminder to Republican lawmakers of what happens when they cross Trump. He was watching the trial from the public gallery, a senator who retired last year in part because he chose to publicly speak out against the president. The lawmakers below him have kept their jobs in large part because they have chose not to speak out against the president whenever possible. That is how Trump survived impeachment even though some of his own former advisers said he did what he was accused of doing.

3. WE DON’T KNOW HOW THIS WILL AFFECT THE 2020 REELECTION

In fact, it’s possible it doesn’t have much of an impact. From the beginning of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry in September to the end on Wednesday, the nation has been divided on whether Trump should be removed from office. And — surprise — Americans’ opinions on impeachment are baked into their political views.

Precisely because of that partisanship, it has seemed difficult if not impossible for Democrats to peel off supporters from the other side, and vice versa. The independents are also split down the middle.

In addition, the result of Trump’s impeachment has inevitable for many voters: House Democrats impeach Trump, the Republican-controlled Senate acquits him.

So if there aren’t surprises on impeachment (save one Republican senator’s vote), what about this process should move the average voter in November?

4. THE INVESTIGATION INTO WHAT TRUMP DID IS NOT OVER

There will be more revelations about what Trump’s intentions were when he paused Ukraine’s aid and asked Ukraine’s president to investigate the Bidens, whether they come from former national security adviser John Bolton’s book, or from others who resisted House subpoenas speaking out, or from witnesses called by House Democrats.

Already, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold E. Nadler (D-N.Y.) has said Democrats will subpoena Bolton (who said he’ll talk to the Senate and has written Trump has political intentions on Ukraine). Other lawmakers cautioned to The Post’s Rachael Bade that decision hasn’t been made yet. They are likely aware of how political it will look to continue investigating Trump’s actions on Ukraine after impeachment is over.

*********

#u.s. news #trump administration #politics #president donald trump #politics and government #trumpism #republican politics #donald trump #trump scandals #us politics #trump impeachment #impeach trump #trump is evil #trump impeachment trial #u.s. senate #senate #republican party #republicans #republican congress

1 note · View note

niafrazier · 5 years

Text

Making the Case for Beto O’Rourke

Full disclaimer: Beto is one of my top picks amongst the 2020 democratic field as of now. I’m a supporter but am in no way affiliated with his official campaign.

At a certain point, Beto O’Rourke was hailed by the media as basically the second coming of Obama, RFK, JFK, [insert any popular democratic figure from this past century… oh and Abe Lincoln]. After he unsuccessfully attempted to unseat Ted Cruz in the senate race, many people across the country were calling him to run for the presidency. He even surged in polling being just behind Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, both who virtually have 100% name recognition. His senate race garnered national attention and even caught Oprah’s attention (she practically begged him to run on her show FFS). Many (including me) grew to admire his authentic, organic, and down-to-earth approach to politics, which is especially refreshing to see given the fact that everything seems so contrived nowadays. So, he wrestled with his decision thoughtfully and eventually came around to the idea, officially tossing his hat into the ring on March 14th, 2019. But now? Right out the gate, the narrative has shifted, and to the mainstream media pundits and Twittersphere, he is seen as an empty-suited, entitled, misogynistic, arrogant dude dripping with white male privilege. What changed? How is it that the media, the very one that contributed to the rise of “Betomania,” subsequently went into a frenzy and poo-pooed all over his rollout? The faux outrage, double standards, and cynicism directed at Beto by opinion writers, pundits, etc. have basically motivated me to give my own takes on the most common criticisms I’ve seen thus far. So, here we go:

“ ‘Man, I’m just born to be in it?’ ”

I’m not gonna lie, taking a look at the Vanity Fair cover and seeing that quote was a facepalm moment. As predicted, this quote sparked outrage fairly quickly… given the optics of a privileged straight white man joining a race of several qualified women and POC… Understandably so. However, upon reading through the whole article, I was able to grasp the essence of Beto’s words. Here’s what he says leading up to his declaration, expressing urgency:

“This is the fight of our lives…not the fight-of-my-political-life kind of crap. But, like, this is the fight of our lives as Americans, and as humans, I’d argue.”

And now here’s the full quote: “Man, I’m just born to be in it, and want to do everything I humanly can for this country at this moment.”

He’s not so much saying that he was born to be in a position of power, rather, he’s expressing that during such dire times, especially in U.S. democracy, he could not in good conscience be complacent and not take action. Just as he was drawn to serve his district in El Paso as a 6 year city council member and a 3-term congressman, he believes that at this moment, he has a purpose to serve the whole nation by being as actively involved in the national discussion as possible—to stand up to bigotry and divisiveness displayed by the current administration of the White House. Beto basically confirmed what I had thought after further inspection when he clarified his statement later (Google it. I’m having trouble with my hyperlinks right now). Could he have worded it better? Sure. I just reject the notion that this one gaffe is supposed to sum him up as an egotistical maniac… please.

“He adds absolutely no value to the race”

This is arbitrary depending on what your key issues are, but I’m gonna give my take on why I think he’s an excellent addition to the race. So, I’ve been intrigued about the possibility of an O’Rourke presidential run since he’s hinted at it back in November. I really didn’t know much about him until toward the end of Midterm season, but the more I learned, the more impressed I became. (Side note: it was this clip that first caught my full attention.) What really fueled my interest in Beto though, was his stance on immigration. As a first generation Nigerian American, this topic is pretty personal to me. My parents were fortunate enough to have the opportunity to immigrate to America and raise me and my three other siblings. However, I’ve also seen firsthand the difficulty of not only getting through with the ridiculous process but also assimilating into this country. For so long, the Democrats haven’t really made immigration a central issue, until the Trump administration hijacked it and pushed the Overton window all the way to the right. With heightened xenophobia running rampant in this country as a result of this abhorrent presidency, it is pertinent that the Democrats not merely pay lip service to this issue any longer and take serious action. Beto has an advantage here: He’s grown up in and served as a U.S House Rep. in the border district of El Paso, also home to the largest binational community in the Northern hemisphere. He can add a lot to the national discussion and debate on the matter. When Trump came to El Paso, the local community organized a counter rally where Beto gave an impassioned speech about the border wall and immigration. It’s pretty long, but I highly recommend the watch. Furthermore, Beto has outlined a 10 point proposal on how best to approach the immigration issue, along with some facts about the border’s history, which you can read here. Immigration hasn’t really been a winning issue, and I honestly don’t see it being one in 2020. With that being said, I respect the fact that despite this, Beto has shown that this is an issue that he deeply cares about. If I’m being honest, even though comprehensive immigration reform is universally called for amongst Democrats, I doubt that anyone in the field will truly make immigration a main priority in their prospective presidencies. To me, Beto has shown that he will. Even if he doesn’t clinch the nomination, it still means a ton to me that we can have the potential to change the narrative of immigration in this country with serious discussion. With the way Beto is able to convey his message, I am hopeful for what’s to come.

So, let’s talk about Texas. With the way Beto was able to energize the Democratic base in Texas, Democrats have the opportunity to put the Republican bastion state into play. With 38 electoral votes at stake, Texas is extremely crucial for the GOP. To put things in perspective, if Texas turned blue in 2016, President Hillary Clinton would have been a thing.

*Bonus: “He Lost to Ted Cruz lol… already a nonstarter”

Yes. But you know who else lost to Ted in Texas? Donald Trump. Cruz obliterated him in the Texas Republican primaries. I’m not saying Texas is guaranteed to turn blue with Beto on the ballot, but if we learned anything in 2016, it’s not to underestimate the possibility of seemingly blue or red states to flip at any given moment. The GOP has taken note of this. We’ve seen that Beto has a ton of appeal in Texas amongst not only Democrats but Never-Trump-Republicans and independents as well! If Beto is on that ballot, the GOP will most likely exhaust a ton of resources and money into Texas to keep it from going blue. This will only make other states that Trump won with the slimmest of margins vulnerable. Also… I find it disingenuous to make comparisons between Beto and other senators that hail from deeply blue states regarding electability. If Beto lost to Ted in California, then yeah… we could have a conversation about that.

“A woman running mate is his preference? Who does he think he is?”

The backlash on this surprised me, to be honest… Even Whoopi Goldberg blasted his ass for the statement on The View. If I had to go on a whim here, I feel like it was the Vanity Fair article that sort of set the mood for Beto’s campaign thus far… because otherwise, I believe that this really wouldn’t have been a story. In fact, Beto is not the only male candidate to call for a woman VP. Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders have strongly hinted at choosing a woman running mate. Interestingly enough, I didn’t recall there being any backlash. Here are Beto’s full remarks on choosing a woman as his running mate:

"It would be very difficult not to select a woman with so many extraordinary women who are running right now, but first I would have to win and there's-- you know, this is as open as it has ever been."

This is very much the response I expected from Beto. Time and time again, he has openly acknowledged his privilege, even before getting hammered about it on social media. In the Vanity Fair article, he states his stance on lack of representation in Washington:

“The government at all levels is overly represented by white men,” he says. “That’s part of the problem, and I’m a white man. So if I were to run, I think it’s just so important that those who would comprise my team looked like this country. If I were to run, if I were to win, that my administration looks like this country. It’s the only way I know to meet that challenge.”

Furthermore, he is understanding and considerate of the fact that people are craving for diversity. Here’s what he says:

“But I totally understand people who will make a decision [cast a vote in the primaries] based on the fact that almost every single one of our presidents has been a white man, and they want something different for this country. And I think that’s a very legitimate basis upon which to make a decision. Especially in the fact that there are some really great candidates out there right now.”

I know I don’t speak for all POC or women, but as a WOC myself, I took no issue to his statements. In fact, I appreciate his sensitivity to the issue and the fact that he doesn’t shy away from addressing uncomfortable topics in politics, such as race and representation.

Let’s just be glad he didn’t pull a Hickenlooper…. Jesus.

“Light on policy… but he stands on counters amirite?”

To discuss this point, it’s important to understand Beto’s campaign style. Beto is more like a blank canvass. What he does is first listen to people and their concerns, and then from there, he shapes his policies around that. He feels that this is the best way to serve the people. The point of his road trips and tours was not to lecture people on full fleshed policy proposals. There is debate on whether or not this is an effective strategy, and I do understand that people do like to know exactly what they’re signing up for before casting a vote. That’s why some people will more likely gravitate toward candidates like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who have been consistent in their messaging. However, I also think people underestimate the power of simply listening. Take these comments that a potential voter made concerning Beto’s ability to listen during his stop in South Carolina for example:

"I think if he keeps talking to the people and being able to listen, and not talk at the African-American voters. Talk to us. Listen to what we have to say… As long as you listen and then actually put forward ideas that are legitimate ideas to do things, then he will be fine.”

While policy specifics are important, this is still the early stages of Beto’s campaign. Specifics, of course, will have to come at some point, especially when debates come around. Another critique I hear is Beto not having any policy proposals on his website yet. He’s not alone though. Several candidates who have been running longer than he has don’t either. It’s also important to note that while people in the race most likely have been mulling a presidential run for several months or years, this has been something that came around to Beto as recent as November 2018. Stuff like this takes time. I think he has potential, however, in this area. For instance, as I mentioned earlier, he has put out a 10-point proposal on immigration. He also has a brief 5-point plan regarding criminal justice reform and legalization of marijuana. (Fun fact, he even coauthored a book concerning the legalization of weed.) And it’s not like he hasn’t taken stances on issues ever either… I mean, he has a whole congressional record, and his townhalls give you an idea of where he stands on key issues.

Oh... and about the countertops. Ugh. The fact that this really sparked outrage is comical. I’ve seen all sorts of takes on this from asserting his male dominance to throwing his youth in Bernie and Biden’s faces (lmao). At a campaign stop, the owner of the coffee shop that he was at asked him to stand on the countertop because people complained that they weren’t able to see Beto amongst the crowds and camera equipment (despite him being 6’4’’, ha). So then it just became a thing since. And he’s respectful about it in case anyone was wondering, lol. But there’s one thing I think both the Beto detractors and I can agree on: why tf is this getting media coverage? I do agree that there should be more coverage for other candidates concerning the real issues. However, the response shouldn’t be to go after Beto or chastise him for doing harmless acts during his campaign stops… Talk that up with the media. The ironic thing about this is that some of the media pundits complain about giving Beto so much coverage… all while giving Beto more coverage about the coverage he’s receiving… 🙄

So if you made it to the end of this extremely long effortpost, thank you. I actually had tons more to discuss but I’m not trying to make this into a novel. Anyways, I’ll say one last thing:

Before going along with groupthink or engaging in the toxic political echo chamber that is Twitter, I implore you all to take a step back and actually get to know these candidates. Seek after local news outlets when candidates visit to get a feel of the vibes from locals. Go to Beto’s Facebook page and watch a town hall or two. You may come home with a different impression than what is portrayed in mainstream media. I can tell you that when I did this, the difference was night and day. We have such an amazing field of contenders to choose from, and I’d hate for misinformation or bad-faith arguments to warp perceptions.

#beto o'rourke #2020 #democratic primary #2020 election #politics

7 notes · View notes

berniesrevolution · 5 years

Link

You will not be surprised to be told that Tucker Carlson’s new book, Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution, contains a series of attacks on diversity, immigration, feminism, and “identity politics.” You may, however, be surprised to be told that the book contains high praise for Ralph Nader, quotes from Studs Terkel, laments the disappearance of the anti-capitalist left, and presents Jeff Bezos as one of its central villains. Carlson has written a book that is as staunchly nationalist as one would expect. Yet it’s also a little bit socialist.

Carlson’s basic framework would commonly be described as “populism.” There are the people, and then there are the “ruling class” elites. The rich and powerful care only about themselves. They do not care about Middle America, and have presided over the opioid epidemic, the hollowing out of industrial towns, and exploding inequality. Meanwhile, ordinary workers suffer. At times, he almost sounds like Bernie Sanders. His analysis is persuasive, well-written, and often funny. It’s also terrifying, because elsewhere in the book, Carlson makes it clear: he wants a white-majority country, thinks immigrants are parasitic and destructive, misses traditional gender hierarchies, and dismisses the significance of climate change. Carlson’s political worldview is destructive and inhumane. Yet because it has a kernel of accuracy, it will easily tempt readers toward accepting an alarmingly xenophobic, white nationalist worldview. Carlson’s book shows us how a next generation fascist politics could co-opt left economic critiques in the service of a fundamentally anti-left agenda. It also shows us what we need to be able to effectively respond to.

First, let’s look at the parts that are most right, and perhaps most unexpected. In an analysis almost identical to that of leftists like Thomas Frank, Carlson says that Republicans and Democrats are now both beholden to corporate power. Sometime in the 1990s, Carlson says, he began wondering “why liberals weren’t complaining about big business anymore,” and had started celebrating “corporate chieftains” like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and the Google guys. Ralph Nader should be a hero to all liberals, spending his days “greeting a parade of awestruck liberal pilgrims” from a retirement home. Instead, he is “reviled,” even though “every point Nader made was fair” and “some were indisputably true.” Suddenly “both sides were aligned on the virtues of unrestrained market capitalism… left and right were taking virtually indistinguishable positions on many economic issues, especially on wages.”

The “prolabor” Democrats, Carlson says, were “empathetic and humane” and “suspicious of power.” But today they have disappeared, and the party of the New Deal is now a party of Wall Street. Carlson points out that Hillary Clinton won wealthy enclaves like Aspen, Marin County, and Connecticut’s Fairfield County (the hedge fund capital of the country). “Employees of Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon donated to Hillary over Trump by a margin of 60-to-1,” and while “Seven financial firms donated 47.6 million to Hillary,” they gave Trump “a total of $19,000, about the price of a used pickup.”

As a result, Carlson says, Democrats are now largely silent on labor issues: “When was the last time you heard a politician decry Apple’s treatment of workers, let alone introduce legislation intended to address it?” Corporations make vaguely “socially liberal” noises, like decrying gun violence and being pro-LGBT, and as a result escape criticism for mistreating their workers or contributing to economic inequality. Carlson cites Uber, which has prominent liberal Arianna Huffington on its board and has had to commit to reforming its “bro culture.” And yet it still treats its drivers like crap:

“[Uber is] running an enormously profitable business on the backs of exploited workers… An obedient business press [has] focused on the ‘flexibility’ Uber’s contractors supposedly enjoyed. … [But] Feudal lords took more responsibility for their serfs than Uber does for its drivers… Uber executives weren’t ashamed… They sold exploitation as opportunity, and virtually nobody called them on it.”

What happens, Carlson says, is that corporations “embrace a progressive agenda that from an accounting perspective costs them nothing.” They are, in effect, purchasing “indulgences from the church of cultural liberalism.” Sheryl Sandberg published Lean In and Mark Zuckerberg is floated as a possible Democratic presidential candidate, but Facebook is an evil corporation to its core. Sean Parker has admitted that Facebook was engineered to be addictive, that its designers thought: “How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?… We need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once it a while.. To get you to contribute more content.” Carlson notes that the company commits “relentless invasions of the public’s privacy,” and that epidemiologists have linked the product “with declining psychological and even physical health.” Carlson writes:

“Evidence has mounted that Facebook is an addictive product that harms users, and that Zuckerberg knew that from the beginning but kept selling it to unknowing customers. Those facts would be enough to tarnish most reputations, if not spark congressional hearings. Yet Zuckerberg remains a celebrated national icon.”

We know Facebook is manipulating people’s emotions to sell advertising, and yet we still get headlines like “How To Raise The Next Mark Zuckerberg.” Or look at Amazon. Jeff Bezos supported Hillary Clinton for president, yet “no textile mill ever dehumanized its workers more thoroughly than an Amazon warehouse.” Carlson asks: “when was the last time you heard a liberal criticize working conditions at Amazon?… “Liberals and Jeff Bezos [are now] playing for the same team.” Successful businessmen “pose as political activists,” and pitch their products as woke. That way: “affluent consumers get to imagine they’re fighting the power by purchasing the products, even as they make a tiny group of people richer and more powerful. There’s never been a more brilliant marketing strategy.” He goes on:

“The marriage of market capitalism to progressive social values may be the most destructive combination in American economic history. Someone needs to protect workers from the terrifying power of market forces, which tend to accelerate change to intolerable levels and crush the weak. For generations, labor unions filled that role. That’s over. Left and right now agree that a corporation’s only real responsibility is to its shareholders. Corporations can openly mistreat their employees (or “contractors”), but for the price of installing transgender bathrooms they buy a pass. Shareholders win, workers lose. Bowing to the diversity agenda is a lot cheaper than raising wages.”

Carlson mocks the “socially liberal” Davos elite who hand-wring about inequality while reaping its fruits. He points to the example of Chelsea Clinton, who talked nobly about her values (“I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t… That wasn’t the metric of success that I wanted in my life”) before buying a $10 million, 5,000 square foot apartment in the Flatiron District that spanned an entire city block. Chelsea Clinton’s career, for Carlson, shows how contemporary believers in “meritocracy” benefit from an unjust and nepotistic system: Clinton was paid $600,000 a year as a “reporter” for NBC despite appearing on the network for a sum total of 58 minutes. The bubble of privilege that many elites inhabit was exemplified in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, which suggested that “Things in America are Fine.” (The slogan was actually “America Is Already Great.”) Carlson is not wrong here: Hillary Clinton herself was so out of touch that she is still saying things like “I won the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product… So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward.”

Carlson also says that there has been a troubling tendency for both sides to embrace the military-industrial complex. Key Democratic figures supported the Iraq War (e.g. Feinstein, Kerry, Clinton, Biden, Edwards, Reid, Schumer). It was New York Timesreporters who contributed to scaremongering about Saddam in the leadup to the war, the New York Times op-ed page where you can find contributions like “Bomb Syria, Even If It’s Illegal” or “Bomb North Korea, Before It’s Too Late,” and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman who said that Iraq War had been “unquestionably worth doing” because it told Middle Easterners to “suck on this.” Barack Obama (who was given the Nobel Peace Prize, Carlson says, for “not being George W. Bush”) killed thousands of people with drones, including American citizens, prosecuted whistleblowers, kept Guantanamo open, and failed to rein in the vast global surveillance apparatus. Hillary Clinton pushed aggressively for military action in Libya, which destabilized the country. There is a D.C. consensus, Carlson says, and it is pro-war. Some of the book’s most amusing passages come when Carlson flays neoconservative hacks like Max Boot and Bill Kristol, who have now become allies of the Democratic Party in paranoia about Russia. Boot’s career, he says, publishing articles like “The Case for American Empire” and advocating invasion after invasion, shows us how “the talentless prosper, rising inexorably toward positions of greater power, breaking things along the way.” The hawkish consensus is no joke, though, and Carlson says he misses the liberal peaceniks, who “were right” when they warned that “war is not the answer, it’s a means to an end, and a very costly one.”

To many on the left, everything Carlson says here will be familiar. The phenomenon he’s pointing to, by which Democrats and Republicans both became free market capitalists, has a name: neoliberalism. Larry Summers was quite open about it when he said that “we are now all Friedmanites.” Carlson’s point about how corporations whitewash exploitative practices by appearing socially progressive is one leftists make frequently (see, for example, Yasmin Nair’s essay “Bourgeois Feminist Bullshit” and Nair and Eli Massey’s “Inclusion In The Atrocious“). The foreign policy stuff is a little off: it’s not that Democrats used to be pacifists, since the Vietnam tragedy was initiated by JFK and expanded by Lyndon Johnson. Empire has always been a bipartisan project, antiwar voices in the minority. Aside from the suggestion that this is new, it’s accurate to say that American elites have largely embraced the projection of American military power.

But Carlson is not going to be joining the Sanders 2020 campaign. His book has a dark side: a deep suspicion of cultural progressivism, inclusion, and diversity. Carlson believes that liberal immigration policies have been imposed because they serve elite interests (Democrats get votes and Republicans get cheap labor for Big Business). As a result, the fabric of the country is fraying. He writes:

Thanks to mass immigration, America has experienced greater demographic change in the last few decades than any other country in history has undergone during peacetime… If you grew up in America, suddenly nothing looks the same. Your neighbors are different. So is the landscape and the customs and very often the languages you hear on the street. You may not recognize your own hometown. Human beings aren’t wired for that. They can’t digest change at this pace… [W]e are told these changes are entirely good… Those who oppose it are bigots. We must celebrate the fact that a nation that was overwhelmingly European, Christian, and English-speaking fifty years ago has become a place with no ethnic majority, immense religious pluralism, and no universally shared culture or language.

To some people, what Carlson writes here may not seem racist. And like many conservatives, he resents having what he sees as common sense treated as bigotry. I don’t think there’s any way around it, though: Carlson’s problem is that the United States looks different, that it’s not “European” any more and has no “ethnic majority.” He’s explicitly talking the language of ethnicity: it’s destabilizing that we’re not a white-majority country anymore. This isn’t simply about, say, the “Judeo-Christian ethic” or embracing the “American idea.” If that were the case, then it would be hard to make a case for why we shouldn’t let in the Catholic members of the migrant caravan, who love American culture and want to march across the border saying the Pledge of Allegiance. The problem is that they are not European, that they change the look of the place, that they disrupt the “ethnic majority.” Europeans are the real Americans, the ones that hold the fabric of the nation together, and minorities, people who are different, threaten to undo that fabric.

(Continue Reading)

#politics #the left #current affairs #tucker carlson #white nationalism #neofascism

43 notes · View notes

theliberaltony · 4 years

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): Let’s not bury the lede: Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is joining his first debate of the cycle tomorrow night in Nevada, even though he’s largely skipped competing in the first four states. He’ll be joined by five other candidates: former Vice President Joe Biden; former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg; Sen. Amy Klobuchar; Sen. Bernie Sanders; and Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

And things are sure to get heated fast. Sanders is currently the polling leader in Nevada and favored to win the state, according to our forecast, but Bloomberg is catching up and is now at 16.1 percent in our national polling average, essentially tied with Biden.

So what should we expect tonight? Attacks on Sanders’s newly minted front-runner status? Or will the country’s first look at Bloomberg overshadow everything else?

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): I’m glad that we finally have an opportunity to talk about Michael Bloomberg since no one else is paying attention to him.

sarahf: Haha, fair. There’s nothing the media loves more than making a non-story a story.

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): The safest bet is that Bloomberg will bear the brunt of most attacks, right? That’s how it has played out in the media this week, between allegations he created a hostile workplace for women and renewed focus on the racial dimension of the stop-and-frisk policing strategy, which Bloomberg supported as mayor.

natesilver: It seems like a safe-ish bet, especially since NOBODY SEEMS TO HAVE NOTICED THAT BERNIE SANDERS IS IN FIRST PLACE IN NATIONAL POLLS AND IS IN PRETTY GOOD POSITION TO WIN THE NOMINATION.

nrakich: Yeah, it’s a pretty sweet deal for Sanders that he has largely been spared attacks even though he’s the primary front-runner after winning New Hampshire (and, arguably, Iowa). He looks on track to win Nevada, too! He’s a more imminent threat than Bloomberg is to the other candidates.

ameliatd (Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, senior writer): Honestly, I think Sanders is really lucky that Bloomberg made it into this debate — since it’s Bloomberg’s first debate, it seems like a safe bet that everyone is going to go after him.

sarahf: BUT at this point … shouldn’t we be paying attention to Bloomberg?

He’s tied with Biden in our national polling average!!

[Our Latest Forecast: Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Primary?]

natesilver: Of course people should be paying attention to Bloomberg, Sarah! But these things are also self-fulfilling prophecies to some extent. The fact that he’s gotten so much more attention than, say, Buttigieg or Klobuchar or Warren is something that media critics should think about. If you take off that media critic hat, he’s obviously a real contender for the nomination now.

ameliatd: I wonder if the attention on Bloomberg will make it harder or easier for the other candidates to stand out. Warren, for instance, could really use a strong performance a la Klobuchar in New Hampshire. I could see it going a couple of ways — maybe being able to attack Bloomberg on stage gives her a little viral moment. Or maybe the fact that everyone will likely be going after Bloomberg makes it harder for her to steal the spotlight.

kaleigh (Kaleigh Rogers, FiveThirtyEight contributor): That’s true, especially when people are eager for the field to start winnowing. Adding a new face might feel like going backwards, and could certainly be distracting.

natesilver: It wouldn’t necessarily surprise me if Bloomberg goes after Sanders in a big way, by the way. His team has certainly been escalating conflict with Sanders. And it plays into his message that he’s the first train leaving the station if you want an alternative to Bernie.

What Bloomberg DOESN’T want is Buttigieg or Klobuchar to surge. He wants to keep things a bit muddled.

Nor does he want a Biden comeback narrative to start brewing. So if he can make news by attacking Sanders or otherwise giving a memorable performance, that probably works for him. It’s not unlike Trump in 2016.

sarahf: And maybe this is less likely, but Sanders could go after Bloomberg. It’s probably too good of an opportunity for him not to at least try and land something. There will literally be a billionaire on stage who has spent a lot of money to buy access for his bid for the presidency. (In fact, Bloomberg has probably spent the most on his campaign out of any other presidential candidate … ever?!?!)

But OK, wait wait. What’s the basis for the idea that we’re NOT paying enough attention to Sanders?

natesilver: That he’s first in national polls and that he’s actually, y’know, had people vote for him and won states, which is what these election things are supposed to be about.

Nobody in the mainstream media has the right to complain about paying too much attention to the polls now, though. Because so far, the Bloomberg thing is entirely based on the polls when there are other candidates who have demonstrated actual support.

kaleigh: But it’s not as if Sanders’s success hasn’t been covered. Certainly there’s room to talk about more than just the front-runners?

There’s also the fact that the vast majority of Democrats have not yet voted. There’s still a race here.

natesilver: I mean, in some narrow but valid sense, Buttigieg is the front-runner (he has the most pledged delegates) and yet, he isn’t getting a ton of coverage.

sarahf: Kaleigh makes a good point, though. Sanders’s successes have been covered. What’s difficult, though, is they haven’t been portrayed as decisive victories. But I kind of get that. Sanders and Buttigieg both “won” Iowa — we’ll see if the recanvassing efforts change that. And he didn’t win the New Hampshire primary by that large of a margin (1.3 points).

So there’s this other narrative emerging around the field being divided and no one candidate having a firm grasp on things — our own forecast puts Sanders’s chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates at roughly the same odds as no one winning a majority — so maybe this is the year every political journalist’s dream comes true … a cOnteSTEd convention … uh, the troll cap is too much work.

nrakich: Sarah, I think some Sanders skepticism is warranted. He has done well in the first two contests but hasn’t dominated, and as you point out, Sarah, our model doesn’t think he has a mortal lock on the nomination.

On the other hand, I think the tone of the coverage of Sanders’s win (covered as if it were a loss) and Klobuchar’s third-place finish (covered as if it were a win) was topsy-turvy.

sarahf: That’s fair, but Klobuchar did manage to double her support in New Hampshire, going from about 10 percent in our polling average to winning 20 percent of the vote. That’s pretty impressive.

natesilver: With Klobuchar, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I’m just not sure that a fifth-place finish followed by a third-place finish should get you all that much attention. On the other hand, she fits the traditional credentials of a party nominee (not too old or too young, not “too” far to the left or too centrist, experienced) more so than most of the remaining candidates do. And people seem more inclined to chase shiny objects.

sarahf: But to step back for a moment, the New Hampshire debate was one of the more consequential debates of the cycle, yeah?

Probably means Nevada will be a nothingburger, but I am intrigued to see what happens there as Nevada is so weird to poll.

ameliatd: One big question for me is how many Nevadans will actually tune into the debate, too. In general, they tend to be less politically engaged than New Hampshire or Iowa voters. So that could dampen the impact.

natesilver: I guess I think that might make the debate more impactful, in some ways? If people are less tuned in, they may not be as far along in their decision-making process, which could make the debate more likely to sway their opinion.

ameliatd: It’s also worth noting that thousands of Nevadans will already have “caucused” by the time the debate starts. Early voting started on Saturday and ended on Tuesday.

kaleigh: More than 26,000 Nevadans voted in the first two days alone.

nrakich: I do think the debate will have more of an impact nationally than it will in Nevada, to Amelia’s points. Think about how the New Hampshire debate turned into a discussion of South Carolina issues!

And Bloomberg isn’t contesting Nevada, so obviously his debate performance will only affect his numbers in other states.

sarahf: So how confident are we about the situation in Nevada? Our Nevada forecast gives Sanders about a 7 in 10 chance of winning there. Biden is the second most likely winner with a 1 in 7 chance, but Warren is close on Biden’s coattails. Buttigieg and Klobuchar aren’t too far off either.

nrakich: Personally, I’m not confident. The Nevada polls are all over the place.

sarahf: Could a strong second-place finish by someone in Nevada overshadow a Sanders win? Similar to what we saw in Iowa and New Hampshire?

nrakich: Yes, I think if someone surprising finishes second (Warren? Steyer?), it will be New Hampshire all over again, where that person gets more favorable coverage than the outright winner (assuming it’s Sanders).

natesilver: I mean … it’s another state where media expectations (BERNIE CERTAIN TO WIN) seem a little out of line with the reality (probably Bernie, but high uncertainty). If I were a Sanders voter, I’d be annoyed at how Sanders always seems to be the victim of the expectations game.

ameliatd: We also haven’t talked about the fact that this is the first state with a significant population of voters of color. So it’s the first real chance to see if candidates like Buttigieg and Klobuchar can do well among Latino/black/Asian voters — if they do, that would obviously be a big deal.

sarahf: That’s right. And at this point, the crosstabs suggest that only Sanders and Biden have a lead there, right?

ameliatd: Well, like Nathaniel said, the polls are kind of all over the place — but yes, among Latinos at least, Sanders and Biden tend to do best.

natesilver: Keep in mind that the Latino population is pretty young, and that Sanders obviously does well with young voters.

nrakich: Yeah, I wonder if Buttigieg will bust out some Spanish during the debate. He recently released a Spanish-language TV ad that he himself narrated.

kaleigh: He’s been running a fair amount of Spanish-language Facebook ads, too.

nrakich: That said, when Beto O’Rourke, Cory Booker and Julián Castro spoke Spanish in the first debate, some people saw it as a stunt. A YouGov poll in June found that 37 percent of Hispanic Americans found it respectful when a presidential candidate spoke Spanish in a debate, and 27 percent thought it was pandering. White Americans (who as of 2016 were still a majority of Nevada Democratic caucusgoers) thought it was pandering by a nearly two-to-one ratio. And Equis Labs, a polling firm that specializes in polling Hispanic Americans, told me that only 29 percent of Hispanic registered Democrats in Nevada say Spanish is their preferred language.

ameliatd: I know we’ve heard quite a bit about health care in these debates, but I bet it’ll come up again tonight, since Sanders is being attacked by the state’s biggest labor union over Medicare for All — and other candidates, like Klobuchar and Steyer, have been jumping on that bandwagon recently.

sarahf: OK, let’s talk candidate strategy for a moment. Bloomberg is a bit of a curve ball.

He isn’t contesting Nevada, so his strategy is to … stop a debate surge from happening and somehow make a plea for voters to consider him, not in South Carolina (which votes next), but hold out for Super Tuesday instead?

But what does this mean for the other moderate candidates, especially Biden? Biden at this point still leads Klobuchar and Buttigieg in national polls — does he need to nip Bloomberg’s momentum in the bud?

And then what does this mean for Sanders? Does he just hope that no one attacks him directly and let the moderates duke it out?

I guess what I’m really asking is … is Biden toast?

Or does this debate have the biggest stakes for him?

natesilver: Why would Biden be toast? He’s tied with Bloomberg in national polls. And he has an opportunity to get a boost with a win in South Carolina or, less likely, Nevada.

If he loses in South Carolina, he might be toast.

sarahf: What if he finishes in fourth or fifth in Nevada, though?

natesilver: Meh, who cares? South Carolina is coming in a week.

Biden’s media narrative is awful as can be now and it probably doesn’t get any worse if he finishes fourth or fifth in Nevada.

nrakich: It might be good for Biden that Steyer didn’t make today’s debate? Not that Steyer has turned in super compelling debate performances, but Steyer might be Biden’s most direct competition in South Carolina.

sarahf: There has to be some consolidation around a moderate alternative to Sanders, right? Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg and Biden can’t all stay in and actually mount a credible campaign against Sanders, can they?

nrakich: They can if they all have visions of emerging as the nominee after a contested convention!

natesilver: Or candidates might think “Sanders v. Bloomberg could go very nuclear, so I need to stick around as the least radioactive option.”

That seems … quite plausible? We probably have to assume that Bloomberg will drop a lot of negative ads on Sanders at some point?

nrakich: He should probably do so sooner rather than later. There are lots of delegates up for grabs on Super Tuesday, and Sanders is currently riding high.

ameliatd: Biden has to be hoping that Bloomberg takes a beating in the debate, though, right?

natesilver: Sure, I think that’s right, Amelia.

But Biden also doesn’t want one of Buttigieg or Klobuchar to surge.

kaleigh: Sarah, if we’re assuming Sanders lands the role of the progressive candidate, does that mean you think Warren is DOA?

sarahf: That’s an interesting question, Kaleigh. She’s currently in third in our polling average in the state.

sarahf: And the labor union there didn’t criticize her health care plan as directly as it did Sanders’s.

nrakich: I think Warren needs to show a pulse in Nevada. She’s already basically conceded South Carolina, canceling a bunch of her TV ad reservations there.

sarahf: So I think there’s still room for a Warren comeback maybe? She definitely was pitching that after her disappointing finish in New Hampshire, but as Amelia mentioned earlier, at this point only Sanders and Biden have demonstrated that they can build more diverse bases.

ameliatd: Warren’s argument has basically been that she’s going to make a comeback on Super Tuesday. But if she has another disappointing finish in Nevada, that could definitely slow her down even further.

natesilver: I dunno. Warren is not THAT far behind since nobody is THAT far ahead. Obviously a win or a strong second-place finish in Nevada could reverse the narrative about her, though.

kaleigh: So who has the most to gain (or most to lose) in tonight’s debate? Biden? Warren?

natesilver: The debate is about Bloomberg, like it or not. It just is. The media is fucking obsessed with Bloomberg. And it’s his first debate. He’s 90 percent likely to be the headline, positive or negative.

sarahf: Yeah, he’s likely to be this chat’s headline.

natesilver: wE aRe PaRt Of ThE PrOBLeM.

nrakich: I mean, I think that is somewhat justified for this debate specifically.

We’ve heard Sanders, Warren, Biden, etc., say the same thing a zillion times. We have no idea how Bloomberg will hold up under pressure. So he is the one we will likely learn the most about tonight.

kaleigh: But Bloomberg kind of has nothing to lose at this point. He’s skipping Nevada, and negative or positive, the focus on him only further legitimizes him as a candidate.

sarahf: I actually think he has a lot to lose.

nrakich: Oh, he definitely has a lot to lose. He’s been pumping his message out to people totally unanswered thanks to his millions of dollars in TV spending!

sarahf: Yeah, that’s what I was going to say. At this point, he’s largely gotten to control his brand.

nrakich: Until this week’s bad headlines, people haven’t heard a bad word about him.

And a big known unknown for Bloomberg is how good of a debater he is. His team is already lowering expectations.

ameliatd: Yeah, I agree with Nathaniel. Whatever you think of the fact that Bloomberg hasn’t appeared in a debate so far, this is his introduction to a debate audience — and maybe more importantly, his rivals’ first chance to attack him in a debate setting. Which is crazy, since we’ve been covering these things for EIGHT MONTHS.

natesilver: I think he has a lot to lose but also expectations (there’s that term again!) seem to be fairly low, i.e., the media assumes he’ll be a mediocre debater.

nrakich: I think there’s room for him to be a decent debater but also for this debate to represent the first mass airing of anti-Bloomberg grievances to the American public.

Like, even if Bloomberg has answers for the criticisms levied against him, it’s the first time many Americans will hear those criticisms.

natesilver: Bloomberg is the one candidate that sort of unites all the others against him. He’s trying to elbow out the other candidates in the moderate lane. And he obviously has beef with Sanders, and the race could easily come down to those two.

kaleigh: That’s true. I just wonder if a debate-long attack from, say, Sanders will make it seem as if Bloomberg is the de facto moderate candidate.

ameliatd: That’s an interesting point, Kaleigh — maybe Biden does run the risk of seeming even weaker if the debate is largely between Bloomberg and Sanders.

natesilver: Also, Bloomberg has not been a longstanding and loyal member of the Democratic Party. He isn’t owed any particular favors or deference. So I’d expect a higher aggression level than we’ve seen in past debates.

nrakich: Oh, I disagree there, Nate.

He has been arguably Democrats’ most important donor in the last few election cycles.

He helped many members of Congress get elected, for instance.

I would argue that it could actually be tricky for someone like Klobuchar or Biden, who are establishment-aligned and came up through the big-donor system, to go after him directly.

natesilver: OK then they deserve to lose, to be honest.

nrakich: I mean, sure, maybe.

natesilver: They should also be going after Sanders directly.

nrakich: But I think only Sanders and Warren are capable of really taking the gloves off.

All the other candidates probably are hoping Bloomberg runs super PAC ads on their behalf in the general.

kaleigh:

sarahf: Meh, Klobuchar and Buttigieg have both proven they’re adept at landing attacks on their opponents/each other.

natesilver: All of the the candidates except Sanders aren’t very likely to be the nominee right now so they should probably worry about that first.

nrakich: I mean, I agree.

But that doesn’t mean they won’t worry about the other thing.

sarahf: OK, to wrap … The Nevada debate. Bloomberg’s first appearance. There seems to be some consensus that this debate will be about Bloomberg, whether he has a good night or bad night. Final thoughts, particularly about the stakes?

kaleigh: I think the stakes are highest for Biden right now, and to a certain extent Warren. Bloomberg’s presence is going to shake things up one way or another, though you’ve all convinced me there’s a chance it could be to his own detriment.

nrakich: This is a lame answer, but I think the stakes are very high for everyone tonight except Sanders.

He’s the only one who can really afford a “bad” debate — and he’s such a consistent debater that even his bad debates are still OK.

ameliatd: I’m also curious to see how Bloomberg handles the pressure of being on a debate stage, and how effectively the other candidates are able to attack him. This is their first chance to really land punches on him — better make it count!

natesilver: This is a lame answer, but I think the stakes are very high for everyone tonight including Sanders.

nrakich: That is an even lamer answer than my lame answer!

I’ll allow it.

natesilver: The line separating “Sanders as clear front-runner with huge momentum!” and “Sanders underperforming in his strongest states” is QUITE thin.

In New Hampshire, it was about 3,800 votes thin.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #A FiveThirtyEight Chat

1 note · View note

narrowtriangle33-blog · 3 years

Text

Quotes that accurately describe White Trump Voters.

"It’s not just that he’s white. White people sneer at, mock, ostracize, and generally hate on other white people all the time. It’s that he DELIVERS RACISM and THAT is the priority to his base. This is what gets me when writers and thinkers wring their hands in befuddlement, like Nichols is doing, about how Trump’s base can “vote against their own interests.” They’re not! They’re prioritizing the babies in cages, the “shithole countries” remarks, the deadly Charlottesville clashes with literal fucking Nazis, etc OVER health care, transitioning the economy away from fossil fuels, education, assistance to the poor, and whatever other liberal agenda items one would think would be natural, rational fits for the Cleti everywhere.

These people are absolutely voting in their own interests, and getting exactly what they wanted out of the Trump admin. He has been a tremendous success in their eyes because he has delivered racism since Day 1, and that’s what they want out of politics."

"This, They will never -ever- admit it, outside of trolling on the net, but Trump has done more to support their views and find great joy in it then any GOP member before.

He’s all but given up on the dog whistles, once he found out that the media will simply ‘tut-tut’ and that delights his base. Even when he does something that will fuck them over, they overlook it because he continues to advance their agenda with huge leaps. Most of the never-Trumpers discovered early on that going against him can lead to getting primaried and Mitch is content to let Trump do whatever the fuck he wants with limited disagreement, because he’s busy installing GOP goal friendly judges everywhere.

The DNC’s response has been to avoid rocking the boat as much as they can by offering up Joe with a bone thrown to black people with a possable black woman VIP. (If that even happens), but the chances are high that Trump will get another four years to continue to do as he likes. And what will the Dems do? Protest and throw shade and offer limited resistance that won’t slow down Trump for a second.

People don’t like to even entertain the idea that Trump will win, but without a huge number of people turning out against them, what else can they expect will happen?"

"My father HATED John Wayne with a burning passion that I remember from age 3-4! He loved Westerns but he would spend the entire movie foaming at the mouth at all the racist tropes and outright historical lies of each one of them! Honestly, although he loved thoughtful rap, I think he idolized Chuck D for simply uttering his infamous lyric!

Now that I’ve reached a certain age, I find I love Westerns too - but not John Wayne, Clint Eastwood or any old ones. I like the newer ones that speak to what deplorables white cowboys were: The Revenant, Bone Tomahawk, Hostiles and the like. They’re still white-centered and white-washed but any modern thinking person can see that the cowboy image should stand for nothing but a savagely cruel, thieving, raping murderer (and we’ve been consistently lied to)."

"Does Trump accept responsibility and look out for his team? Not in the least. In this category, he exhibits one of the most unmanly of behaviors: He’s a blamer. Nothing is ever his fault."

"This is nothing but rose-colored bullshit. Anyone who’s ever spent more than 5 minutes working in corporate life knows for the most part this isn’t how white men behave. Those offices are full of extremely mediocre men who are very confident and have nothing to back it up with other than their bluster, egos, and the generational wealth that allows them a leg up over others. That generational wealth allows them to go to the diploma mills that open doors for them. Admitting mistakes or even admitting just not knowing something in that environment comes off as weakness to them. They spend most of their energy trying to project the image of confidence and control, which is why they’re quick to rage when things don’t go their way. A good example is the douche bag running Quibi that gave that horrendus interview a couple of weeks ago. He was asked a couple of questions about why his company was failing while other streaming services are thriving, and where they might have went wrong in their business model. He didn’t accept responsibility for shit. He went into his hurt little feelings and attacked the interviewer, and tried to make the questions seem like they weren’t valid.

On steroids this white American exceptionalist world view is called patriotism. It manifests in the idea that we as a country can do things counter intuitive the rest of the world just because we’re the USA. More mass shootings by far than any other country? USA! Other countries have cheap/free education through college? So what, USA! Biden even displayed this during one of the debates when Warren pointed out the same disparity in our healthcare compared to every other developed nation. Guess how he responded.

I feel like I started rambling a little but what I’m trying to get at is that whiteness, toxic masculinity, and patriotism are so intertwined that its beyond the author of that Trump think piece."

"Funnily enough as the article and subject matter were in regard to racism in the US I didn’t feel a burning need to mention Indigenous Australians but to answer your question they are pretty much in the same boat as black Americans. Did anything I say imply otherwise or were you just fishing for an argument?

"Stupid as it is, “You’re a manly-man, right? So why is your manly-man leader such a cowardly little pussy?”

That’s not what he projects and that’s not what they see. They see him using aggressive and accusatory tones and language all the time and it makes him look tough."

They fall for the “Emporor Has No Clothes” routine because they never look at him critically. They buy the bullshit on the surface, and don’t see that his words never match his actions. He said on tv several times that if anyone in the country wants a Covid test, they can get tested. Ask them how many people they know whose jobs don’t require it, have actually been tested. He down played the death toll of this disaster every step of the way. Remember when we were supposed to be in church for Easter? As long as he lies with confidence, they’ll follow him to hell."

"I’m definitely tired, and frustrated, and everything else. I keep holding my nose and voting, and that only adds to the exhaustion and frustration because very little if anything seems to change, and in some ways we keep repeating the mistakes of the past. I’d never advocate for doing nothing, but trying to engage and challenge the average Republican-voting dipshit to think critically, and not keep supporting people and policies that perpetuate and exacerbate the problems this country has??? No thanks. If you’re not black, I so encourage you to take up that mantle, but for me as a black dude in this country I can’t. Talk about shooting the messenger. Plus, to keep it a buck, this is mostly white people’s mess, if not all. They need to fix it.

Honestly I feel like racism festers because most white people just look the other way. The racism of their peers/friends/relatives doesn’t impact them personally so they’re probably just people to be avoided. Why rock the boat when you can just avoid an uncomfortable topic? Joe might forward you Fox News and OANN stories, and racist FB memes, but he’s fun at Bills games. Well what if Joe is also a cop, or in a management position over minorities? You can bet money he takes those views you overlooked with him to his job. The PoC he interacts with won’t have the benefit of seeing him at Bills games, or might not even have the benefit of being seen as equals."

"People get so caught up in the blatant, mustache-twirling racism that they don’t see the subtle pervasive way it spreads like a cancer. For every Trump there are dozens Joes, and along with the Joes are the real problem: The people who ignore the Joes. The Joes and Karens go on to commit all kinds of microaggressions that Poc pretty much have to tolerate, and in Joe’s and Karen’s minds that’s just the way the world works. I deserved to get followed around Joe’s store. I came in wearing a hoodie and Adidas so I couldn’t be up to any good. Karen felt threatened when I walked into the building she lives in, so she felt justified to call the police, never mind the fact that I live there too. This is how deep this shit runs. It’s not just politics. Racism isn’t just baked into politics. It’s part of the flour the US was baked with.

So I appreciate you if you’re willing to call these fools out. I’m glad somebody is because I’m not wasting my breath. They won’t hear me anyway."

"I mean if Tom Nichols was in front of me and read this steaming pile of shit to me I would’ve slapped him silly and said the reason that people that look like you excuse all of his fuck ups, failings and mistakes is because well HE LOOKS LIKE YOU!!!! The question that none of these mouth breathing chud monkeys seem to want to answer or are incapable of answering is would you excuse any black, Hispanic or Asian man that had his resume? We know the fucking answer.

When this bloated piece of unseasoned chicken shut down the government in January of 2019 hurting his all white, poorly educated base the most a quote from a voter in Florida was burned into my head forever. She said upon not getting her government subsidized check (I mean they have no issues with the government helping them, it is those pesky brown people that are lazy and entitled) “He is not hurting the people he is supposed to be hurting.” Let that sink in. A voting US Citizen thought it was the job of the sitting *president to hurt people. That says it all. Their allegiance isn’t based in anything other than anger and hatred of those that they deem less than them. Fuck him and them and may they both rot in hell."

"“He is not hurting the people he is supposed to be hurting.”

That spontaneous, bewildered, stream of consciousness utterance by someone who doesn’t think critically but has an indwelt recognition of like-mindedness IS the Trump voter exemplified! A racist who found themselves too poor, too old and without the power to demand or protect the status quo and just wants to stick it to their perceived enemies while retaining ‘something’ for themselves.

That sentiment has fueled every waking thought, worry and action of an American white since the founding of this country.

So, it’s not just every Confederate flag waver, every neo-Nazi and every flyover state’er; it’s every aggrieved American white who had to accept the changing world around them; there’s no reasoning with them nor changing their minds.

My fear is that I’m becoming inhumane like them because I was soooo happy when he cut her Meals on Wheels and didn’t cut her Social Security check."

"I think you nailed this right on the head. All through the article, he keeps pointing out what we already know except for one thing. After all, why would white people elect someone who is so far outside of what they claim to be/stand for? He’s not conservative in any real way. Yet conservatives stand behind him. He’s not a Christian in any practical sense by his actions. Yet Christians say he’s sent by God. He’s not a good businessman, father, or even person. Yet here we are. The only answer that makes sense in any real way is that he is proof that to many people, any white man can do the same or better than even the best black man, woman, or POC in general. There’s always a backlash to progress both real and imagined. Trump is it."

"Also, a lot of the characteristics Nichols thinks represent the opposite of idealized masculinity are actually representative of masculinity as it is performed in this country. From my experience with men who lean into their masculinity, it is about performing dominance by antagonizing people, all in the service of making shallow, insecure men feel better about themselves. Trump is a domineering asshole, which is what too many men think being a man is all about."

"It is fascinating how unbelievably brainless racists are. Many of the commenters and you Damon have pointed out the stupidity of racism. I mean this seriously, racists have absolutely abandoned intellect, progress, humanity or desire for real greatness that could manifest through equality, in order to hold onto the despicable delusion of superiority based solely on a human having more melanin than another. The sheer simplicity of the trick doesn’t even seem like it should work; but alas, all roads merge at Slave Rd. The dimwitted aptitude it takes for a person to actually believe stealing humans, beating, burning, assaulting, selling their children on auction blocks, splitting families (and more brutalities)...... all for greed born out of sheer laziness, and again stupidity is mindblowing. You literally must turn your brain off to be a racist, and you see it now. Millions of white people, with switch STILL off, courtesy of their forefathers, have continued down this same disastrous, nose-spite-ing road. There’s a lot of white people walking around with black kerchief’s, hiding the draining blood and a ragged hole where their nose once occupied, holding a tight grasp of their hate. Their greed. Trump finally allows them to remove that blood soaked kerchief with pride for all the world see their disfigurement. It’s stunning that there is pride where instead, their should be pure shame for then and for now."

0 notes