[News] Post a Political News Story

Ongoing discussion of the political news of the day. This thread is for 'smaller' stories that don't call for their own thread. If a story blows up, please start a new thread for it.

Stele wrote:

It's tied up in that damn Christian persecution complex.

White conservative Christians are literally the most persecuted group in America today according to white conservative Christians.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EADTzf0WsAEiBhb.jpg)

OG_slinger wrote:
Stele wrote:

It's tied up in that damn Christian persecution complex.

White conservative Christians are literally the most persecuted group in America today according to white conservative Christians.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EADTzf0WsAEiBhb.jpg)

My personal experience on this matter is very different from what they claim. I'm white and a Christian and I regularly go out and sit in a public place where there is public wifi and work on things like bible studies and sermons. I have bibles and hymn books on the table whenever needed, and sometimes I'll even wear a Christian shirt with some message on it and NOT ONCE have I ever had anyone come up and start harassing me or persecuting me in any way for it. In fact, sometimes people will say, "I like your shirt" and/or start up a conversation with me about church or Jesus or some similar topic. And even when I'm not doing work in a public place looking very obviously Christian (and white), I'll regularly overhear (though not intentionally) conversations around me about church, Jesus, and of course lots and lots of public prayer due to saying grace over meals and the like. NOT ONCE have I ever seen anyone harassing or persecuting them either.

I've gotten far, far, far more harassment over the years from being female than I have have received from being white and/or Christian.

Now is that to say that Christians are never persecuted anywhere in the U.S.? No, there are times and places where it happens, but I just don't see it as happening on some widescale basis all over the country.

I posted over on a Christian forum a couple weeks ago on a similar topic that white male Christians were probably the *least* persecuted group in the U.S. right now, and got a "well that's just what *you* say" type of response from the person who was feeling the most "victimized".

The only time Christians are "persecuted" is when they try to force their beliefs and judgement on others. Self-fulfilling persecution for "spreading the word" of intolerance. Oh wait Jesus didn't preach that...

bekkilyn wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

White conservative Christians are literally the most persecuted group in America today according to white conservative Christians.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EADTzf0WsAEiBhb.jpg)

I've gotten far, far, far more harassment over the years from being female than I have have received from being white and/or Christian.

I believe that, and it got me to notice that "women" isn't an option on that chart, and I find myself wondering how bad the results there would be.

I am trying to look at that chart and not see racism but what other reason for the disparity in republicans regarding blacks...

fangblackbone wrote:

I am trying to look at that chart and not see racism but what other reason for the disparity in republicans regarding blacks...

I watch/listen to a fair amount of conservative media “for fun” and the underlining theme to a lot of it is that traditionally marginalized groups have been catered to so much by progressive lawmakers and the media that they now have a disproportionately privileged position in society and cis white christians are now the ones being marginalized. It’s batsh*t nuts.

ruhk wrote:

I watch/listen to a fair amount of conservative media “for fun” (...)

I don't want to know what you do when you feel like torturing yourself...

nako wrote:
ruhk wrote:

I watch/listen to a fair amount of conservative media “for fun” (...)

I don't want to know what you do when you feel like torturing yourself...

I feel like it’s important to stay current on whatever nonsense is currently in the conservative zeitgeist because it will invariably be thrown at me whenever I interact with relatives and other acquaintances still living in the rural Midwest bubble. I’d rather be prepared than confused and dumbfounded when an aunt tries to explain how Democrats want to forcibly castrate all straight males and sell them into chattel slavery.

I don’t watch a ton of stuff, maybe just one or two videos or podcasts a week. It’s not really necessary to subject myself to more than that because they mostly all use the same arguments and fixate on the same things.

I didn't mean that as criticism, I just wouldn't be able to stand to subject myself to that kind of nonsense. But I'm also lucky enough not to be confronted with bullsh*t this extreme in my day-to-day life.

I didn’t take it as criticism, I’m just used to having to explain why I watch this stuff to people familiar with my politics.

fangblackbone wrote:

I am trying to look at that chart and not see racism but what other reason for the disparity in republicans regarding blacks...

It’s not surprising when the answer is always racism.

ruhk wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

I am trying to look at that chart and not see racism but what other reason for the disparity in republicans regarding blacks...

I watch/listen to a fair amount of conservative media “for fun” and the underlining theme to a lot of it is that traditionally marginalized groups have been catered to so much by progressive lawmakers and the media that they now have a disproportionately privileged position in society and cis white christians are now the ones being marginalized. It’s batsh*t nuts.

Yeah the old affirmative action stole my job, my spot at college, etc. bullsh*t.

And I can barely even watch Meet the Press or other shows the last few months. They let Republicans lie their asses off without ever challenging any of it. I can't imagine watching the hosts spouting the same propaganda on conservative media.

NYT: Ricardo Rosselló, Puerto Rico’s Governor, Resigns After Protests

SAN JUAN, P.R. — Gov. Ricardo A. Rosselló of Puerto Rico announced his resignation on Wednesday, conceding that he could no longer credibly remain in power after an extraordinary popular uprising and looming impeachment proceedings had derailed his administration.

In a statement posted online late Wednesday, Mr. Rosselló, 40, said he would step down on Aug. 2.

He said his successor for the moment would be the secretary of justice, Wanda Vázquez, a former district attorney who once headed the island’s office of women’s affairs. Ms. Vázquez was next in line under the commonwealth’s Constitution because the secretary of state, who would have succeeded Mr. Rosselló as governor, resigned last week when he also was caught up in a chat scandal that enveloped the administration.

But the governor appeared to leave open the possibility that a different successor could be in place by the time he steps down.

His ouster by popular demand meant more to Puerto Ricans than a rejection of Mr. Rosselló’s administration. It amounted to a resounding repudiation of decades of mismanagement and decline that everyday people blamed on politicians in San Juan and Washington.

Huh, impending impeachment causes a leader to resign. Maybe that could apply to other things...

Is Josh Hawley For Real?

Missouri’s Josh Hawley is as close as the U.S. Senate gets to the Facebook generation. At 39, he’s young enough to have used Hotmail as a teenager and Friendster as a young adult. But his views on the tech industry are those of a curmudgeon. As Missouri’s attorney general, he launched an antitrust probe against Google in 2017. In his six months in the Senate, he has attached his name to no less than five bills aimed at regulating and reducing the power of Big Tech. He routinely raises the prospect of breaking up Facebook, and in May he slapped Mark Zuckerberg with a six-page letter that challenged his fellow thirty-something dad to an era-defining duel. “The burden to illustrate that Facebook will make a positive contribution to American life is on you,” wrote Hawley. “The burden to protect the American people from forces parasitic on our national life is on me.”

For a nakedly ambitious up-and-comer in D.C.’s corridors of power, there is obvious logic to the theater of telling Mark Zuckerberg, “I’m coming for you.” Public opinion has begun to turn on the tech giants, and the populist art of taking on a villainous monopoly is something Hawley, author of an admiring biography of Teddy Roosevelt, understands better than most. As he told The Washington Post, “My great worry ... is an economy that works for a small group of billionaires and then everybody else gets their information taken from them and monetized.”

Taken at face value, there is much to admire in this approach to Big Tech, which goes beyond standard-issue conservative outbursts over the alleged censoring of Diamond & Silk and James O’Keefe. He’s right to raise fundamental questions about the attention economy, and taking a sledgehammer to Facebook has been proposed by Democrats, too. But Hawley’s stated concerns about growing inequality and user privacy don’t explain the peculiar intensity of his crusade. To understand the source of its heat, it’s necessary to probe the culture-war frilling that lines his rhetoric—the lamentations over a faithless “cosmopolitan” consensus paralyzing the once-noble American republic, as Hawley announced in a jeremiad before a high-profile conference of conservative nationalists in Washington, D.C., earlier this month.

This closer-in look reveals Hawley, a devout evangelical Presbyterian, to be something other than just another fresh-faced family values Republican or opportunistic trust-buster. In his very first speech on the Senate floor in May, Hawley invoked an “epidemic of loneliness and despair ... a society increasingly defined not by the genuine and personal love of family and church, but by the cold and judgmental world of social media.” These lines illuminated the edges of a worldview bigger than the sum of its policy expressions. Behind this weltanschauung is an emergent conservative tendency dubbed “post-liberalism”—a stewing amalgam of long-marginalized ideas on the right that have found new life, like ancient spores released by an earthquake, in the aftermath of the 2016 election. While the lead thinkers of this movement might more accurately be dubbed “pre-liberals,” they claim Hawley as one of their own, and it is through the prism of their crabbed, reactionary political thought that Hawley’s tech crusade is best understood.

Stated simply, the post-liberals—represented foremost by the right-wing Israeli scholar Yoram Hazony, but also by more mainstream writers like The New York Post’s Sohrab Ahmari—reject universal reason as a basis for laws and government. They mourn the institutions, values, and hierarchies that secular rationalism has laid to waste in the name of progress. They see the global rise of right-wing populism as evidence of a profound and widespread if inchoate dissatisfaction with the Enlightenment legacy of pluralism, the primacy of individual rights, and the hard separation of church and state. Lockean ideas about “liberty” have led to an “Epicurean liberalism” that consecrates “the right to choose your own meaning, define your own values, emancipate yourself from God by creating your own self,” Hawley has said. The post-liberals propose an alt-liberty grounded in place and tradition, bound by social relations and obligations, rooted in the Bible.

For the post-liberals, Big Tech is basically Armageddon. In his post-liberal manifesto, Why Liberalism Failed, Patrick Deneen calls technology an “anticulture, a tradition-destroying and custom-undermining dynamic that replaces cultural practices, memory, and beliefs, [and] now seems to be leading us ineluctably into a condition of bondage.” Meanwhile, the campuses of Silicon Valley, liberalism’s futuristic imperial city, are monuments to the failure of “fusionism”—the Cold War alliance of convenience between traditionalist conservatives, libertarians, neoconservatives, and Chamber of Commerce Republicans. For their decades of junior partnership in a movement based on false ideas about human nature, the post-liberals hold up a dismal tally: A hollowed-out culture. Trans story hour at the local library. A few good judges, but not enough. A postcard of Grover Norquist in a Speedo and dust-goggles postmarked from the pagan bacchanal of Burning Man.

I really liked this article, because I think the rise of what we can call, for short, "post-liberals" is a major, global thing. In Poland and Hungary, the ruling parties are explicitly trying to build an "illiberal" state where:

In his essay “Conservative Democracy,” Hazony limits toleration for social and religious views to those who “do not endanger the integrity and well-being of the nation as a whole.” Some rights established under liberalism will remain; others will be taken away. Quoting Burke in “What is Conservatism?”, Hazony and Haivry explain that all rights will be decided by traditions and heritage passed down like a “recorded hereditary title,” rather than subject to revision by “every wild litigious spirit.” At the center of this heritage is the Judeo-Christian Bible, which imparts “a certain dignity and sanctity to each human being,” as Hazony writes in “Conservative Democracy,” but says “nothing about our being by nature perfectly free and perfectly equal.”

And I think this is the crux of where we are. So much of this reminds me of the multi-part series the NYT's "The Daily" did on Liberal Democracy in Europe.

Also, I have no idea where to post this but the entire A$AP Rocky thing is ridiculous an insane.

Like, on the one hand, it is ridiculous for our President to be attempting to influence Sweden's independent judiciary in this manner (or demanding that Sweden's politicians intercede/influence the courts, which clearly is a thing he'd do), especially considering he doesn't appear to know much about Sweden's justice system (he said he'd pay Rocky's bail, except Sweden doesn't have a bail system, for instance).

On the other hand, it also seems ridiculous that Rocky has been jailed for nearly a month over a street fight. To be clear, I'm not arguing that nothing should happen, but if a bunch of guys get in a dust-up in public, spending a month in jail before you're even tried seems.... weird?

It's all just incredibly, resplendently stupid. THE FREAKING SWEDISH AMBASSADOR JUST HAD TO TWEET THIS.

It's a bit of bone of contention between Sweden and the Council of Europe Committee of the Prevention of Torture (CPT) . Sweden has a huge population of remand prisoners. On the other hand, Sweden courts do move quick and apparently there are protections in place if you are employed but I've no idea how that works in practice.

I understand there is some pressure to reform it but I'm not sure how much. Does seem to be a hill not worth dying on for now.

And, just a reminder, the CPT isn't an EU body.

Et tu, Brute?

Smart, decent men.

In all honesty, this does not surprise me in the slightest. The Supreme Court does like people to know how awesome the Supreme Court is.

I read this as simple professionalism more than any endorsement of any of his personal views.

thrawn82 wrote:

I read this as simple professionalism more than any endorsement of any of his personal views.

Perhaps. I viewed it more in the vein of a Roberts-style image management attempt by the Court.

Wasn't it a response to direct interview questions rather than something that she came out and said unprompted? My impression was that she was asked to dish dirt about her colleagues and she politely declined to do so.

thrawn82 wrote:

Wasn't it a response to direct interview questions rather than something that she came out and said unprompted? My impression was that she was asked to dish dirt about her colleagues and she politely declined to do so.

Unclear. I tried following the links back but couldn't find the direct quotes (I am pressed for time) but it seems to be a general response to questions related to the perceived partisan nature of the Court.

thrawn82 wrote:

Wasn't it a response to direct interview questions rather than something that she came out and said unprompted? My impression was that she was asked to dish dirt about her colleagues and she politely declined to do so.

It was in response to a direct question.

National Review wrote:

On Wednesday night, Ginsburg delivered a 30-minute speech looking back at the 2018 Supreme Court term and Stevens’s life, before participating in an hour-long question-and-answer session with Duke Law professor Neil Siegel, one of her former clerks. When Siegel asserted during the Q&A that “nominees for the Supreme Court are not chosen primarily anymore for independence, legal ability, [and] personal decency, and I wonder if that’s a loss for all of us,” Ginsburg immediately defended Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. “My two newest colleagues are very decent, very smart individuals,” she said.

She expressed delight over the fact that she had assigned two opinions to Gorsuch and one to Kavanaugh during the last term, something she was only able to do only because the two justices senior to her on the court (Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas) were in the minority.

“The Court remains the most collegial place I have ever worked,” Ginsburg said. She lamented how divisive Supreme Court nominations have become. “I had a history of being a flaming feminist,” Ginsburg said, before noting that she was confirmed 96–3. “I was general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.” Ginsburg pointed out that her “buddy,” the late Justice Antonin Scalia, also had well-known constitutional views when he was confirmed by a unanimous vote. “My hope is we will return to the way it once was,” Ginsburg said of the confirmation process.

“Nowadays, when people divide into ‘I’ll talk to my own kind, and the others I have nothing to do with,’ that’s very sad because that hasn’t been the way it was and isn’t the way this country should be,” Ginsburg said. She added that Americans should go “beyond just mere tolerance of different views” to “welcoming different views because they enrich our society.”

I was thoroughly creeped out from the CNN article, though, hearing RBG praise Kavanaugh for having only female clerks.

OG_slinger wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

Wasn't it a response to direct interview questions rather than something that she came out and said unprompted? My impression was that she was asked to dish dirt about her colleagues and she politely declined to do so.

It was in response to a direct question.

National Review wrote:

On Wednesday night, Ginsburg delivered a 30-minute speech looking back at the 2018 Supreme Court term and Stevens’s life, before participating in an hour-long question-and-answer session with Duke Law professor Neil Siegel, one of her former clerks. When Siegel asserted during the Q&A that “nominees for the Supreme Court are not chosen primarily anymore for independence, legal ability, [and] personal decency, and I wonder if that’s a loss for all of us,” Ginsburg immediately defended Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. “My two newest colleagues are very decent, very smart individuals,” she said.

She expressed delight over the fact that she had assigned two opinions to Gorsuch and one to Kavanaugh during the last term, something she was only able to do only because the two justices senior to her on the court (Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas) were in the minority.

“The Court remains the most collegial place I have ever worked,” Ginsburg said. She lamented how divisive Supreme Court nominations have become. “I had a history of being a flaming feminist,” Ginsburg said, before noting that she was confirmed 96–3. “I was general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.” Ginsburg pointed out that her “buddy,” the late Justice Antonin Scalia, also had well-known constitutional views when he was confirmed by a unanimous vote. “My hope is we will return to the way it once was,” Ginsburg said of the confirmation process.

“Nowadays, when people divide into ‘I’ll talk to my own kind, and the others I have nothing to do with,’ that’s very sad because that hasn’t been the way it was and isn’t the way this country should be,” Ginsburg said. She added that Americans should go “beyond just mere tolerance of different views” to “welcoming different views because they enrich our society.”

I was thoroughly creeped out from the CNN article, though, hearing RBG praise Kavanaugh for having only female clerks.

Thanks for the follow up, OG!

OG_slinger wrote:

Kathy Zhu, Miss Michigan of the Miss World America pageant, was stripped of her title over the weekend when MWA officials discovered several offensive tweets she had made.

One made the news in 2018 when the Orlando Sentinel reported that the then University of Central Florida freshman had complained about a Muslim Student Association tent that had been set up to celebrate World Hijab Day.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/vFMpCo7.png)

In another since deleted tweet Zhu said "Did you know that the majority of black deaths are caused by other blacks? Fix problems within your own community first before blaming others."

In response to being stripped of her title the 20-year-old said that she "stand(s) by each and every one of my tweets on my account," that "coming out as a conservative is way harder than coming out as gay in today's society," and that "I am very glad that I now have the opportunity to speak out about the unjust treatment of conservatives."

As of this afternoon there's no official word on when Turning Point, Fox News, or the Trump campaign will offer her a job.

Less than a week after losing her Miss Universe title she's been named to the Women for Trump Coalition Advisory Board.

The Trump 2020 Campaign created the coalition in mid-July to woo women voters. It's led by Lara Trump, wife of Eric Trump.

As a libertarian – and, he notes, a millennial – Soave, a staff writer at Reason, positions himself as usefully outside the fray: sympathetic to some of the activist left’s goals but skeptical of their means.

I'm sure his book will get me to change my mind that libertarians are really just hard core Republicans who like weed and don't want to be called racists.

It definitely is a problem. If we continue down this path, we adopt the structure of evangelical christians where we can shield ourselves from consequences from our awful thoughts and actions because no one is more devout than we are.

We will attempt to out "woke" each other like evangelicals out "Jesus" each other. "Nobody gives more or volunteers more to Greenpeace or the ASPCA, so I am above your reproach." Or we will create some left clique club where you either graduate from UC Berkeley or GTFO.