The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[Tani Coyote]

So Biden and Bernie neck and neck in Washington.

A ton of delegates still remain uncounted from the pro-Bernie states of March 3rd's race.

Biden won Idaho and Michigan despite Bernie's supposed rural appeal.

Short of some miracle after the 15th's debate impacting the 17th primaries, Biden is the nominee.

He generally polls better than Trump but given he's clearly losing his marbles, I would not be surprised if that changes.

We can only hope that Dems can still do well downticket so Trump doesn't enter his second term with both Houses of Congress again.

[KHCast]

 

I really shouldn’t be surprised of the shit that leaves Biden’s mouth nowadays, but like...holy shit, my mouth dropped hearing some of this. Yeah the OP of this tweet is right by a mile. Bernie won it, but it won’t matter, CNN were clearly padding this for Biden, and it’s obvious they’re gonna skew their articles to paint him in a better light than Bernie. And it’s gonna work. 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

So hypothetically, if Biden gets the nomination and loses to Trump, I guess that really shows how little they’ve learned from 2016, huh?

[SenEDDtor Missile]

https://www.isidewith.com

Hey, if you're interested in finding out how much your political beliefs align with 2020 candidates, you can use this site here. It quizzes you on major election issues, then helps to show you how much your beliefs align with the candidates' statements and plans. It's pretty eye opening really, and gets to the point without social media or media clogging things up. It's nonpartisan and nonprofit too, so there's minimal risk of bias.

[Dark Qiviut]

At least SOME good news coming out of tonight! One progressive beats a Trump Democrat, and another holds against a tough-on-crime opponent!

 

[KHCast]

So sounds like Trump is on board with the the idea of sending all qualifying adults in the country $1000 checks in the wake of this pandemic screwing over a bunch of people in terms of finances. Now there still aren’t details on exactly who, qualifies. Like if it’s currently employees adults only, or any legally documented adult, if this includes the already rich, etc. 
 

It has me wondering, what if you’re homeless? If this encompasses ALL legal adults, how will they receive this? And if it doesn’t include them, that’s a pretty big fuck you/classist approach to this as a large percentage of Americans not only won’t be able to get the already hard to get medical aid, but also won’t be able to receive financial aid for basic survival either. Effectively saying you’ll gladly leave them to fend for themselves. This approach could be very messy any way you split it, and only widen the classism divide between rich and poor. 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I’m hearing a few talks about how Covid-19 is practically 2020’s version of 9/11, but on a global scale.

I can definitely see how given it might cause a paradigm shift—just like how 9/11 brought neo-militarism, COVID-19 might pave way for the next group of soldiers: Doctors and Physicians.

Would be better if the US had learned its lesson a lot better from in 1918 Pandemic, but times have shown that not a lot of people pay attention to history.

 

EDIT: And speaking of which, Rand Paul has tested positive for the Coronavirus.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

2 hours ago, CrownSlayer’s Shadow said:

I’m hearing a few talks about how Covid-19 is practically 2020’s version of 9/11, but on a global scale.

I can definitely see how given it might cause a paradigm shift—just like how 9/11 brought neo-militarism, COVID-19 might pave way for the next group of soldiers: Doctors and Physicians.

Would be better if the US had learned its lesson a lot better from in 1918 Pandemic, but times have shown that not a lot of people pay attention to history.

 

EDIT: And speaking of which, Rand Paul has tested positive for the Coronavirus.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/3/21/1929793/-Justice-Dept-seeks-emergency-powers-including-detaining-people-without-trial-indefinitely

And of course in the middle of a brewing pandemic, the right wing autocrats in control of the DoJ right now want to push their agenda of control even further.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Not to brush the risk off, but given how combative things are between federal level and state levels, that’s not that concerning yet.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

22 minutes ago, CrownSlayer’s Shadow said:

Not to brush the risk off, but given how combative things are between federal level and state levels, that’s not that concerning yet.

Just trying to keep an eye on the snakes.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

If I can make ONE prediction about how things will be after COVID-19, it’s that this’ll speed up the legalization of marijuana faster than expected.

And the reason will be simple: money. This country has been here before with the Prohibition, only this time we don’t need a constitutional amendment to ban and repeal a substance. At some point, like they did with alcohol, they’ll want to really boost the economy given how much it’s fallen, and marijuana would hilariously be one area they’ll have to allow if they want to make some funds.

[Ellipsis-Ultima]

Bernie Sanders has suspended his political campaign. Joe Biden's gonna be the Democratic candidate most certainly.

[KHCast]

It seems one of the main arguments I’m seeing from people wanting people to vote for Biden is Trump and his Supreme Court picks. Here’s the thing tho... is there any guarantee the fears about that hold? Seems a lot of liberals main concerns pertaining to the Supreme Court is that policies relating to women’s rights (primarily abortions), and LGBTQ rights, will be passed that endangers them or allows for discrimination, but I don’t think either of those groups are in any long term danger. Especially if the senate can be taken by democrats. The idea of pushing to say, reverse same sex marriage, or allow for blatant discrimination against trans or gay people looking for work, or hospitals being allowed to turn away gay people, while being policies pushed for by smaller republicans, I do not believe would have any serious footing in a Supreme Court case, even if trump appointed republicans judges. This holds true in regards to abortions, and in general women’s healthcare. This “long term damage to these groups” I do not believe would be as long term as some will try and make out. 
 

Now sure, you can make arguments regarding pay distribution among the working class, and how another trump term wouldn’t help that, however, I can’t exactly say Biden holds any advantage on that subject either, especially when he’s running on a “capitalism works” platform like Trump. Most of the fears outside “but women and lgbt people and immigrants” can honestly to varying degrees be applied to Biden as well. Hell, worse so in most cases given how empty in policy his platform is.

[Tornado]

"Obama endorsed Biden. He is now the perfect political candidate."

[Tani Coyote]

Re: the Supreme Court. The GOP is playing to lose with how openly they want to pack it, honestly. The thing about the Supreme Court is it derives its power entirely from legitimacy... which it derives from giving an illusion of not being partisan hacks.

The moment the Supreme Court starts throwing out Roe and Obergefell and all those is the moment we stop paying attention to what a bunch of unelected old people in robes yell at us.

I am not optimistic Dems will carry the Senate with or without Biden at the top, either, so what we would really be playing is "Biden cannot put anyone on the bench as the GOP's Senate majority grows in 2022 so the next GOP President can efficiently pack it."

**

Plus, political considerations aside, I really can't bring myself to vote for a guy getting buried in sexual misconduct accusations.

Yeah yeah, the whole "lesser evil" thing. But at what point do you make a stand? I'm gonna go full Godwin on this one: "well he committed atrocities against fewer people" is literally the argument fascist apologists make to say Hitler was better than Stalin. No, they were both mass murdering sociopaths.

In 2016, I was told not voting for a candidate because they were not an ideal choice was a sign of privilege. I took that to heart, and largely considered it to be true; black people have to work with less than ideal choices all the time, this is true.

But Hillary was different. For all her flaws and for how obnoxiously the Democratic leadership and media pushed her on us, she didn't perpetrate sexual assault. She was a typical boring neoliberal as opposed to someone who actively is going around hurting people directly.

So yes. Choosing not to vote Biden is a privileged thing to do. But on the other hand, choosing to vote Biden is giving a blank check to every despicable human being that they are free to be our President, that all the backdoor politics (I'm sure it was entirely chance everyone suddenly dropped to endorse Biden the eve of Super Tuesday) is a-okay, all on the basis of "well he's the lesser evil."

No thanks. I will vote downticket for Democrats to check the abuses of Trump (who I think is a favorite to win anyway unless the economy just collapses), but I can't really get behind backing Biden at the top.

While I'm here. There is one big problem with the black voter comparison and the privilege narrative that stems from it. Black voters tend to fairly solidly support the moderate in the primary anyway, so of course there's no issue with backing them in the general; this was true this year, when Biden absolutely destroyed Bernie among black voters (especially older black voters). Once you go beyond that community, however, there is often a lot more incongruency between your primary pick and the nominee. This is going to lead to a very different electoral experience and voting decision. Or, another way to put it: privilege is multifaceted here. Chances are a black voter's primary election preference is the nominee anyway, so of course it's not difficult to get behind the nominee.

[Patticus]

On 4/16/2020 at 4:39 AM, Legosi (Tani Coyote) said:

So yes. Choosing not to vote Biden is a privileged thing to do. But on the other hand, choosing to vote Biden is giving a blank check to every despicable human being that they are free to be our President, that all the backdoor politics (I'm sure it was entirely chance everyone suddenly dropped to endorse Biden the eve of Super Tuesday) is a-okay, all on the basis of "well he's the lesser evil."

It's not a "lesser of two evils" decision in the traditional sense, where both candidates are bad people, but one is a bit worse than the other, but it's okay, because there's another round of elections in a few years' time. No, this time you're choosing what political system you want to define the coming century:

Biden's not great by anyone's reckoning, but ultimately he stands for preserving the oligarchic democracy we have now.

Trump, on the other hand, is a straight up fascist, and stands for destroying democracy to enrich himself and his donors, establishing America's first dictatorial dynasty, and ending the Republic.

Meanwhile, his Quisling lackey, McConnell, is stacking the courts full of unqualified and brazenly partisan cronies; short of a solid year of near-continual impeachment hearings to remove them all (in the event the Democrats can win all 3 government branches and have the spines to do it), they will define America for generations to come, and make it all but impossible to pursue legal avenues to undo Trump's policies, remove him from office, or prosecute him or his family/friends. If Trump wins, it becomes much less likely that we will have another free election without foreign occupying forces present to guarantee it, because while this term established his power, the next will consolidate and entrench it. The third and fourth terms he "jokes" about? Not jokes. He idolizes dictators, and if we're not vigilant, we'll vote ourselves into one.

Call me an alarmist if you want, but from everything I've seen, the basic founding principles of this country are at stake, and so this election demands everyone vote Biden. And I wouldn't vote for him under any other circumstances.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/4/29/1941307/-The-evidence-you-need-to-see-regarding-Reade-and-Biden

Hrm, apparently there's been a lot of mounting evidence that Tara Reade might not be telling the truth regarding her sexual assault, with a number of people pointing out holes in her story, the story in question constantly changing, and her strange affiliation with Vladmir Putin. Read this and make your own judgment, but it seems like her actions MIGHT have ulterior motives for political reasons.

Quote

Then there is the fact that Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund referred Reade to multiple attorneys at its partner firm, the National Women's Law Center. They unanimously declined to work with her, because, as they expressed it, she was requesting PR assistance rather than legal representation:
www.salon.com/...https://www.salon.com/2020/03/31/a-woman-accuses-joe-biden-of-sexual-assault-and-all-hell-breaks-loose-online-heres-what-we-know/

Quote

Then there are the heaps upon heaps of Reade’s own online postings and documented contradictions in her multiple and ever-changing stories: 
medium.com/...https://medium.com/@eddiekrassenstein/evidence-casts-doubt-on-tara-reades-sexual-assault-allegations-of-joe-biden-e4cb3ee38460

Quote

After extensive interviews with Tara Reade, The New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow and the New York Times’s Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey — all of whom won Pulitzer Prizes for their meticulous coverage of the 2017 Harvey Weinstein investigation — refused to report on her story, because there were too many inconsistencies and claims which could not be substantiated.

Quote

Next, there is her former employer, who says she has papers and emails to prove Tara Reade  stole from her charity:
medium.com/...https://medium.com/@eddiekrassenstein/biden-accuser-tara-reade-allegedly-stole-from-a-non-profit-organization-e276cac68a2b

 

Quote

Lastly, in 2018, Reade had been writing multiple gushing posts praising Vladimir Putin, some of which were actually written in Russian. 

@KHCast @Dark Qiviut @Legosi (Tani Coyote)

[Dark Qiviut]

@SenEDDtor Missile I'm very familiar with all of this.

1. Ryan Grim, who broke Tara Reade's story in the first place, has refuted Marcotte's own editorial and contacted Salon himself because she was plain wrong. Salon itself agreed and updated her article.
2. Reade's old support for Russia changes absolutely nothing. The alleged rape occurred in 1993, long before she got into her pro-Russia fad. Five people, including her late mother in a call to Larry King and two people in a recent Business Insider report, corroborated. Her claim of sexual assault by Biden today is the same as back then.
3. The Krassenstein brothers don't deserve one bit of credibility. Their grift dates back to at least 2016, and Twitter banned them for buying bot accounts to increase their Twitter profiles. The fact that these con artists lead this claim of theft by Tara is a massive question mark all by itself. They have as much journalistic integrity as Milo Yiannopoulos.

I still fully believe Tara Reade and remain in her corner.

[Patticus]

The Reade story is strange, but it doesn't seem like she has done herself any favors over the last year or so.

An ex-Federal Prosecutor broke down every inconsistency in her story (excerpts below):

Quote

More significant perhaps, is Reade’s decision to sit down with a newspaper last year and accuse Biden of touching her in a sexual way that made her uncomfortable — but neglect to mention her claim that he forcibly penetrated her with his fingers. 

As a lawyer and victims’ rights advocate, Reade was better equipped than most to appreciate that dramatic changes in sexual assault allegations severely undercut an accuser’s credibility — especially when the change is from an uncomfortable shoulder touch to vaginal penetration. 

More significant perhaps, is Reade’s decision to sit down with a newspaper last year and accuse Biden of touching her in a sexual way that made her uncomfortable — but neglect to mention her claim that he forcibly penetrated her with his fingers. 

As a lawyer and victims’ rights advocate, Reade was better equipped than most to appreciate that dramatic changes in sexual assault allegations severely undercut an accuser’s credibility — especially when the change is from an uncomfortable shoulder touch to vaginal penetration.

Quote

Implausible explanation for changing story. When Reade went public with her sexual assault allegation in March, she said she wanted to do it in an interview with The Union newspaper in California last April. She said the reporter’s tone made her feel uncomfortable and "I just really got shut down” and didn't tell the whole story.

It is hard to believe a reporter would discourage this kind of scoop. Regardless, it's also hard to accept that it took Reade 12 months to find another reporter eager to break that bombshell story. This unlikely explanation damages her credibility.

Implausible explanation for changing story. When Reade went public with her sexual assault allegation in March, she said she wanted to do it in an interview with The Union newspaper in California last April. She said the reporter’s tone made her feel uncomfortable and "I just really got shut down” and didn't tell the whole story.

It is hard to believe a reporter would discourage this kind of scoop. Regardless, it's also hard to accept that it took Reade 12 months to find another reporter eager to break that bombshell story. This unlikely explanation damages her credibility.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/04/29/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation-tara-reade-column/3046962001/

There's a lot more to it in the article.

I think she's got a long uphill battle ahead if she wants to be taken seriously, considering the inconsistencies, contradictions from other people, lying about being fired, the missing formal complaint, the unverifiable Larry King call, her weird infatuation with Putin and Russia, etc.

Biden has a long history of making some women feel uncomfortable, and perhaps he did engage in some inappropriate behaviour or even committed sexual assault (his handling of the Clarence Thomas SCOTUS nomination was breathtakingly horrendous, and may point to Biden exhibiting or identifying  with behaviours similar to his), but her case is dicey at best from a prosecutorial standpoint.

[KHCast]

To be fair, didn’t prosecutors and analysts claim the same thing during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings? Could have sworn a bunch of professionals were claiming the stories presented from those coming forward didn’t line up and that they contradicted themselves.

[Patticus]

44 minutes ago, KHCast said:

To be fair, didn’t prosecutors and analysts claim the same thing during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings? Could have sworn a bunch of professionals were claiming the stories presented from those coming forward didn’t line up and that they contradicted themselves.

The same Brett Kavanaugh, during whose hearings Lindsay Graham promised to conjure up false rape/sexual assault allegations against future Democratic nominees? The same Brett Kavanaugh who perjured himself on live TV?

Maybe there were inconsistencies in the accusations leveled against BK, I don't know - but I do know that he's shady as hell and that the investigation was probably a sham.

But looking at this case, if Reade was assaulted, she's not been doing her credibility any favours.

Edit:

Tara Reade says that you won't find the words "assault" or "harassment" in her 1993 complaint.

https://www.businessinsider.com/tara-reade-says-her-complaint-didnt-mention-assault-or-harassment-2020-5

Meanwhile, all the way back in March...

Quote

Tara: I actually did come forward in 1993 but not to the press. But I went through protocol and complained.

Katie: What was your complaint about?

Tara: Sexual harassment.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200331050720/https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/03/tara-reade-tells-her-story/

She's not making it easy for me to accept her version of events.

[Dr. Mechano]

I'm gonna vote for Biden, but I won't like it.

At this point, harm reduction is my top priority. Trump has damaged this country so much in four years that we can't afford to give him another term.

As for Bernie, while he may not have gotten the nomination, I do think he's still inspired a lot of people and changed a lot of the discourse, moving the overton window far enough that we as a country are at least seriously talking about universal healthcare and higher education. Other people will run in the future, promoting his policies or variations of them. So I don't think it can be overstated how much of a difference he's made even without the presidential nomination.

Anyway, make sure you register and vote this year.

[KHCast]

I’m not voting for Biden that’s for damn sure. Trump is bad, but he’s not the root, he’s the byproduct. The current political and social systems as they are produced trump, and voting this guy: 

is not going to guarantee one bit that a Trump can’t happen again. Not to mention Biden in policy is probably as bad if not worse, especially given his track record of flip flopping on them. This is who the Democrats push as what their platform is about, and that’s fucking pathetic. A mentally unstable candidate running his platform off “I worked with Obama also something something black people, Trump bad” without any of the Obama charm, and all of the Obama flaws. To me, the last thing we need is voting for a candidate off “well he’s not trump”, especially when that candidate offers literally nothing, and “hearkens back” to a time where nothing was actually improving just staying the same, and that led us to this current man in office.

Call it a waste, but I’m just fucking writing in a name this time. While another 4 years of Trump will suck(and let’s face it, Biden isn’t gonna have the groups necessary to pose a threat come elections. It’s gonna be another Hilary but without her “I’m a woman” angle) , a Biden presidency isn’t gonna fix anything either. The divide in the Democratic Party/and social masses is irreversible, and the issues that need immediate attention, like rampant capitalism and the damages it’s caused to our economy and working class, he’s more or less written off as not being a issue that needs immediate attention. (Otherwise he wouldn’t have undermined Bernie multiple times and label socialism as communism at every chance) I honestly can’t see it being much better outside “well we won’t get incredibly stupid tweets and overt racism/sexism” (then again it’s Biden so...). And if I’m being honest, much like trump himself, that damage he caused honestly you could argue was always there, our political parties just kicked it under the rug until someone revitalized it.
 

If anything, Democrats should be aiming more at the senate so they can at least attempt to limit the damage another inevitable trump term potentially does. But that would be sensible, and I’m pretty sure Dems expect trump to win, and are already ready to use that to revitalize their base and get them ready to “come together” and complain about Trump more, while keeping them from looking at the cracks within their own party.

[Patticus]

You can vote for Biden, and not much like it because he represents a last century status quo that lead to Trump's emergence.

But the alternative is tacitly endorsing fascism and the end of democracy as we know it.

That's the choice.

This isn't like 2008 or even 2016. This is 1932.

I don't understand anyone who would not vote Biden in these extreme and life-altering circumstances. He's not great, I wouldn't have let him run if I had any say, he's clearly mentally deteriorating, but dear lord why can't you understand the existential threat represented by the man whose party revealed the Constitution to be nothing more than toilet paper.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

And we haven’t even seen his VP pick yet.