U.S. Politics: The Biggest Trade in WNBA History

[Gamzee Makara]

My BS detector is going off as well.

This seems like a reputation assassination attempt via fake endorsement that plays on the Berniebros' reputation for being bullies to have a bully "endorse" Bernie.

Or a "Wag the Dog" scenario.

 

[WishIhadaManafi5]

I think it was legitimate and everything, Joe Rogan doesn't seem particularly dishonest to me. In terms of handling his endorsement though, I think that, and this might be a mis play I'm not sure, but I wouldn't have rejected the endorsement outright since it technically wasn't an endorsement - Rogan said "probably" He didn't say "I officially support Sanders and I encourage my viewership to vote Sanders" I just wouldn't have said anything at all. It's unlikely that you would see this kind pressure on Sanders to repudiate Rogan if he didn't tweet bragging about his support. I feel like if he kept his mouth shut about it he would have been fine.

Ah I see. Still don't trust anyone with views that clash with progressives, suddenly supporting them.

@Gamzee Makara

Exactly.

 

[bobjr]

Sanders didn't compromise anything for his support. Joe Rogan is dumb, but supports M4A and if that's his biggest motivating factor this so be it.

Maybe putting it in an advertisement might have been too much, but really you shouldn't go "don't vote for me", especially if you're not changing anything to get that vote.

 

[MotostokeOnTrent]

I think it was legitimate and everything, Joe Rogan doesn't seem particularly dishonest to me. In terms of handling his endorsement though, I think that, and this might be a mis play I'm not sure, but I wouldn't have rejected the endorsement outright since it technically wasn't an endorsement - Rogan said "probably" He didn't say "I officially support Sanders and I encourage my viewership to vote Sanders" I just wouldn't have said anything at all. It's unlikely that you would see this kind pressure on Sanders to repudiate Rogan if he didn't tweet bragging about his support. I feel like if he kept his mouth shut about it he would have been fine.

It definitely feels like a strategic error in the context of a party contest but, loathe though I am to admit it, Rogan does have pretty incredible pull and his politics are pretty damn close to mainstream. The Democrats are going to have to share the polling booth with people far worse than Rogan if they want to win (and I really do want them to win). Any movement that responds to a minor endorsement from a popular, centre-right-ish media personality with conspiracy theories probably isn't a movement destined for success.

(The other irony is that Rogan's 'endorsement' isn't really that much of a compliment, and it's inadvertently revealing of Rogan himself. Anyone who's actually "insanely consistent their entire life" - nearasdammit 80 years - is probably not very bright.)

 

[Baba Yaga]

Well, yeah, I think the issue isn't so much that Rogan's support is evil and he shouldn't vote for Bernie, it's that his campaign took his light handed praise and ****ing ran with it without thinking. Instead of acknowledging this error, progressives are using this as a platform to strawman and caricaturize marginalized groups with the typical "WOKE CANCEL CULTURE STRIKES AGAIN" and "IDENTITY POLITICS IS RUINING THE LEFT" and other such nonsense, and I'm not cool with that.

 

[Gamzee Makara]

Well, yeah, I think the issue isn't so much that Rogan's support is evil and he shouldn't vote for Bernie, it's that his campaign took his light handed praise and ****ing ran with it without thinking. Instead of acknowledging this error, progressives are using this as a platform to strawman and caricaturize marginalized groups with the typical "WOKE CANCEL CULTURE STRIKES AGAIN" and "IDENTITY POLITICS IS RUINING THE LEFT" and other such nonsense, and I'm not cool with that.

Ummmmm...that's not Progressives...that's the far right...

 

[Baba Yaga]

That's the point I'm making! People who are *supposed* to be progressives are pulling this ****. All the big names in progressive media, TYT, The Hill, Kyle Zulinski, Rational National, etc. etc. are all spear heading this right wing talking point, hence this disconnect I'm feeling.

There's a faction in the progressive party that is deeply resentful of the current trend within social justice activism that if you see something, say something. Otherwise coined as "call out culture" And it's made a lot of progress, you can't really be openly racist or sexist on television anymore. People have to think twice about saying things that could hurt others or risk losing their careers, the backlash to this progress has been to strawman social justice activists into whiny little shits that are going beat you to death for misgendering their cat. That backlash is starting to infect and find it's way into progressives and that scares me.

 

[The Admiral]

So, I find myself a bit at odds with a lot of the big progressive voices on youtube saying that the anger over Sanders tweeting out Joe Rogan's endorsement of him.

I'm upset because it's so dismissive and malicious. It's being called "fake outrage" and "off the rails SJW politics" or "woke cancel culture" or whatever, and it just wasn't anything like that. People had a right to be upset when Sanders flaunted the endorsement, given that Joe Rogan is a transphobic bigot.

The issue is that homophobia and transphobia are more socially acceptable than racism, because you know Sanders would have rejected the endorsements of say, Tucker Carlson for example. And this whole argument that Joe Rogan has this amazing platform that's too good to pass up? Bernie was leading before his endorsement, and I thought principle was why everyone liked Bernie to begin with?

But I've noticed this about the progressive wing for some time. They got hardcore in bed with people that use social justice as a pejorative and turned the phrase "identity politics" as a slur. Without "identity politics" we wouldn't have civil rights at all, they would do good to remember that. Politics are formed around identity not for arbitrary or shallow reasons but because society forces groups of marginalized people to band together.

I would be more understanding if they were only making the argument from practicality, but they're being straight up hateful and mean spirited about it.

The YouTube left is as full of idiots as every other sector of YouTube. Source: I've made YouTube videos and am an idiot. Also seeing a lot of vaguely-popular leftist YouTubers circling the wagons around a known transmed (and to a point, the specific ways they were doing this) makes me super uncomfortable.

Overall, I do understand this idea that Joe Rogan's support of Bernie could be taken as a time to reach out to some people, but it also feels like a. grounded in a few very big assumptions about how receptive how much of Rogan's audience actually would be to that kind of thing; but also b. something that is tremendously easy to **** up if it's a real opportunity, and that's almost definitely what will happen. (Granted, a big thing I've mentioned before is that it is much harder to explain left-wing politics than right-wing, especially the further left you go.)

Also that Bernie's campaign trumpeting this around is perhaps not a good look, but I've often felt that a lot of Bernie's campaign people have made some really boneheaded moves. Like keeping Jeff Weaver around. That guy just comes off as a supreme asshole. But this is not really about Jeff Weaver. This is about Joe Rogan, whom I don't exactly see voting dem in the general regardless of who the candidate is. The whole thing is kind of odd. But also, more importantly, it amazes me how many people are not talking about how relatively minor a thing it is he actually literally said.

 

[bobjr]

It makes a little more sense when you realize that Dem leadership's bigger argument against Bernie is he's too extreme and puts people off, and we should go to the center (because 2016 didn't teach them anything) so showing that his consistent message he's been pushing his whole life can get anyone on board then that's a good sign for a general election.

It's why Bernie can actually go on programs like that when it's usually bad when a lot of other people do. He'll give a consistent platform he believes in, while others will back away when having to defend a strong position. It's why I'm excited to see where AOC goes, because she's the same way, and despite leadership hating her she's basically the average Millenial in terms of views, so pushing a "extremist who no one is like" won't work there either.

 

[Pikachu52]

It makes a little more sense when you realize that Dem leadership's bigger argument against Bernie is he's too extreme and puts people off, and we should go to the center (because 2016 didn't teach them anything) so showing that his consistent message he's been pushing his whole life can get anyone on board then that's a good sign for a general election.

It's why Bernie can actually go on programs like that when it's usually bad when a lot of other people do. He'll give a consistent platform he believes in, while others will back away when having to defend a strong position. It's why I'm excited to see where AOC goes, because she's the same way, and despite leadership hating her she's basically the average Millenial in terms of views, so pushing a "extremist who no one is like" won't work there either.

My personal thoughts on teh situation are that the lessons of 2016 might well not be that the DNC has a path to victory by nominating Bernie Sanders or other left of centre candidates, because I don't think the election result can be laid at the feet of the DNC's decision to undermine a Sanders candidacy.

Had a certain DNC cyber technician read over the email they sent to a John Podesta staffer and wrote "illegitimate" instead of "legitimate" president moron probably wouldn't be sitting in the White House now. And even then, if a certain FBI director had not drawn a letter to Congress advising he had re-opened a certain investigations into certain emails, the 2016 probably would have gone the Democrats way.

I could be wrong, but my general thoughts about the 2016 election are that the result is largely a fluke - the result of an unhappy constellation of factors and a major disinformation and cyber warfare campaign waged against Hillary Clinton from Moscow.

That isn't to say the 2020 landscape will be the same as 2020. Merely because 2016 is a fluke does not mean that a return of groper in chief is unlikely. The incumbent always has an advantage in US presidential elections and when economies are going or seen to be going a strong there tends to be a favour towards continuity rather than change. On top of that, I fear there's a real risk in overstating the general appeal or popularity of left leaning candidates or policies.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has a history of both telling outright falsehoods and making extremely offensive comments towards racial and other minorities, and had multiple members of his own party defect over Brexit, but still managed to win a landslide election last year against a Labour leader who had enjoyed broad support from the party rank and file, with an ambitious and left of centre policy agenda. Even despite the general unpopularity of his party's austerity measures.

Notwithstanding the fact that there are obviously unique aspects to the 2019 UK General Election that aren't present in the 2020 US presidential election - Brexit - I think the democrats can be forgiven in having scepticism of Bernie Sander's ability to win the Presidential Election in November and why they might favour somebody like Biden.

 

[Baba Yaga]

"The YouTube left is as full of idiots as every other sector of YouTube. Source: I've made YouTube videos and am an idiot. Also seeing a lot of vaguely-popular leftist YouTubers circling the wagons around a known transmed (and to a point, the specific ways they were doing this) makes me super uncomfortable"

Considering that progressive voices don't really have any other platforms, like it or not those are the people representing us. A bit misleading to say vaguely popular as well - they have enough clout to get Sanders himself and his surrogates to appear on their platforms.

"On top of that, I fear there's a real risk in overstating the general appeal or popularity of left leaning candidates or policies"

How can you overstate what's simply true?

The vast majority of Americans, evidenced by poll after poll, agree with the "far" left, from Medicare for all, free college, student debt, foreign intervention, minimum wage, trade, etc.

 

[MotostokeOnTrent]

There's a world of difference between individual policies - or just ideas - that are popular in a vacuum, and an actual prospectus for government tied to a party and a candidate. These questions are all going to give pretty feel-good results:

- Do you like free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare Y/N?
- Do you like the abolition of tuition fees Y/N?
- Do you like digital giants paying their fair share of tax Y/N?
- Do you like the idea of a higher minimum wage Y/N?

But I bet the picture becomes much less rosy if you ask:

- Do you like this list of policies put forward by a Democrat administration, led by X candidate, at approximately Y cost?

You literally couldn't ask for a better example of how 'popular' policies are no guarantee of success than the recent UK GE. Labour's offering included the nationalisation of broadband and the railways, the introduction of higher rates of income tax and greater wealth taxation - all policies with 50%+ approval - but offered as part of a package with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm, voters proceeded to give the Tories their greatest victory in decades (almost half of respondents also said that, taken collectively, the manifesto was too extreme): https://twitter.com/ChristabelCoops/status/1219207011138789376

 

[The Admiral]

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has a history of both telling outright falsehoods and making extremely offensive comments towards racial and other minorities, and had multiple members of his own party defect over Brexit, but still managed to win a landslide election last year against a Labour leader who had enjoyed broad support from the party rank and file, with an ambitious and left of centre policy agenda. Even despite the general unpopularity of his party's austerity measures.

Don't forget that Jezza was also being lied about very heavily by the media -- one of the bigger ones being to call him antisemitic because he thinks (correctly) the Israeli government sucks an egg -- and a lot of people in Labour, especially higher-up, were virulently and publicly anti-Corbyn. Otherwise, it kind of misrepresents things a little.

Even if we eliminated that, I kinda feel like BoJo was exploiting that same feeling that George W. Bush and his folks did to get us to the point where he was perceived as "a president you could have a beer with." There is absolutely something to be said about PR.

Also the post right above this one. (I do agree that this would have had a better shot if it had been put forward by not-Jeremy Corbyn, but I'm also not 100% sure who you'd get to say it, not being that in-tune with British politics.)

 

[MotostokeOnTrent]

Don't forget that Jezza was also being lied about very heavily by the media -- one of the bigger ones being to call him antisemitic because he thinks (correctly) the Israeli government sucks an egg

I dunno, maybe it could have been something to do with:

- His lies to Parliament about meeting Holocaust deniers: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/10/jeremy-corbyn-faces-new-questions-over-antisemitism
- His interactions with racist Facebook groups and artwork: https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/...lleanne-green-badge-of-honour-labour-1.468109 and https://medium.com/@twlldun/the-socialism-of-fools-cb3426fc10bf
- His appearances on Iranian state TV to spread conspiracies about "the hand of Israel": https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.co...l-in-egypt-bombing-during-press-tv-interview/
- His belief that 'Zionists' don't understand what it means to be English: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rbyn-antisemitism-labour-zionists-2013-speech
- His association with a known advocate of the blood libel: https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/...c-raed-salah-s-expulsion-from-the-uk-1.482455
- His lies about his personal team's interference in antisemitism disciplinary cases: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48929244
- The fact that the party he leads is being investigated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/inquiries-and-investigations/investigation-labour-party

Here's a fantastic and fresh autopsy of Corbyn's legacy; one of the main takeaways is how virulently he reacts to fairly mild criticism of his leadership on the issue, even when said criticism rejects the notion that he is personally antisemitic: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/corbynism-the-post-mortem/id1494568978?ign-mpt=uo=4

 

[Baba Yaga]

There's a world of difference between individual policies - or just ideas - that are popular in a vacuum, and an actual prospectus for government tied to a party and a candidate. These questions are all going to give pretty feel-good results:

- Do you like free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare Y/N?
- Do you like the abolition of tuition fees Y/N?
- Do you like digital giants paying their fair share of tax Y/N?
- Do you like the idea of a higher minimum wage Y/N?

But I bet the picture becomes much less rosy if you ask:

- Do you like this list of policies put forward by a Democrat administration, led by X candidate, at approximately Y cost?

You literally couldn't ask for a better example of how 'popular' policies are no guarantee of success than the recent UK GE. Labour's offering included the nationalisation of broadband and the railways, the introduction of higher rates of income tax and greater wealth taxation - all policies with 50%+ approval - but offered as part of a package with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm, voters proceeded to give the Tories their greatest victory in decades (almost half of respondents also said that, taken collectively, the manifesto was too extreme): https://twitter.com/ChristabelCoops/status/1219207011138789376

But Sanders is also the most popular politician in the country. If you can't win a general election when the majority of the country agrees with you, it's not that your policies are too extreme, but more so that you don't know how to run a campaign.

The original argument being made was that populist policies shouldn't be over stressed and doing so could in fact be a risk or weakness -which is just silly because that's the inherent strength of populism to begin with. If you want to say you can't win on that a lone, that's fair, but no one is saying otherwise. To somehow spin it like emphasizing the majority of the country stands with you is a risk with and of itself is bonkers.

The most liked and trusted candidate in U.S. politics is running on a platform with the most liked and popular policies. You would be a fool to shy away from that, and if the polling is any indication, the American left is getting tired of centrism. Warren tanked when she backed down from medicare for all, Bidens lead is dropping as his record on social security is being exposed, and Buttigieg is all but on life support. "Centrism" is being rejected by the left, the only reason Biden maintains the lead in most super Tuesday states is out of unfounded fear mongering regarding Sanders electability.

 

[bobjr]

I do think you shouldn’t discount what a hostile media can do. No news channel is pushing Sanders and is actively ignoring him at best, and as a result he does do terrible among older voters. The same thing happened to Jezza, when you saw the average person against him use more vague terms like “I don’t know if I can trust him” or something instead of anything specific, because it used to be way easier to do that. His only real mistake was not having a strong Brexit stance but at the same time I don’t think anyone could have fixed that, the party was too divided on the issue l.

The only reason Bernie is surging now is they tried to attack and it didn’t work, because you have to attack popular positions, and an age attack only works if you’re Mayo Pete, who’s pushing himself as the Anti-Bernie now.

 

[Gamzee Makara]

I do think you shouldn’t discount what a hostile media can do. No news channel is pushing Sanders and is actively ignoring him at best, and as a result he does do terrible among older voters.

The only reason Bernie is surging now is they tried to attack and it didn’t work, because you have to attack popular positions, and an age attack only works if you’re Mayo Pete, who’s pushing himself as the Anti-Bernie now.

He's the converse:Gay, which would be a first, left-center, a plus for the old guard, young, but sellout and too much whitecismale cliches.

 

[bobjr]

Pete Buttigeg would be GOP if he wasn’t gay.

Dude was a war consultant who was fixing bread prices.

 

[MotostokeOnTrent]

His only real mistake was not having a strong Brexit stance

And being a racist with zero ministerial experience, a policy platform that was collectively unpopular and second-guessing the country he wanted to lead at every turn; the fact that his first reaction to the Russian murder of UK citizens was to suggest the Government consult with Russia on the evidence was vividly remembered by many voters (as were his sympathies for violent Irish republicanism).

Edit: In fact, the same podcast I mentioned earlier highlights exactly why comparisons between Corbyn and Sanders can only go so far: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/corbynism-the-post-mortem/id1494568978?ign-mpt=uo=4

 

[Pikachu52]

So this is a distributing development...The GOP controlled House of Representatives has passed a bill that would have the affect of cutting off access to treatment for trans-youth in that state.

The key provision is this one

Except as provided in § 26-10-38, a medical professional who engages in any of the following practices upon a minor, including an emancipated minor, for the purpose of attempting to change or affirm the minor's perception of the minor's sex, if that perception is inconsistent with the minor's sex, is guilty of a Class 4 felony:

(1) Performing the following surgeries: castration, vasectomy, hysterectomy, oophorectomy, metoidioplasty, orchiectomy, penectomy, phalloplasty, and vaginoplasty;

(2) Performing a mastectomy;

(3) Prescribing, dispensing, administering, or otherwise supplying the following medications:

(a) Puberty-blocking medication to stop normal puberty;

(b) Supraphysiologic doses of testosterone to females; or

(c) Supraphysiologic doses of estrogen to males; or

(4) Removing any otherwise healthy or nondiseased body part or tissue.

Read the text of the bill here.

And see CNN’s piece about it

It’s one of several conservative states to be in the process of attempting to do so:

This rush by conservative lawmakers to seemingly cut off access to healthcare for trans people was spurred by the litigation involving one Luna Younger in Texas, a custody dispute involving Ms. Younger who identifies as male to female transgender, and whose mother is supportive of her identity and transition and her father is not. The facts of the case seem to be quite disturbing - you can read about them on Vox.

My personal editorial - this is just not right. America is supposed to be a democracy, its supposed to have a bill of rights. This style of legislative harassment, I shall call it, of a minority group is what I would of expected of a country like Russia, which several years ago passed it’s anti-gay propaganda law.

Unfortunately it follows the pattern of the Bush and early Obama years where republicans in federal and state government passed measures specifically designed to limit civil rights of same sex couples and same sex attracted persons, including marriage bans, the infamous religious freedom laws and of course the defence of marriage act, which barred federal recognition of same sex marriages.

The irony here - Conservatives are all about personal freedoms and small government if you want to buy a gun or are a big corporation and don’t want tax or minimum wages, but seem quite fond of quote unquote “big government” when it comes to deciding what sort of healthcare trans youth may have access to.