CURRENT EVENTS

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 946
  • Views: 17K
  • Politics 
meanwhile in England. the Tories, after stepping on rakes a plenty, decide to go to the rake store for some more stepping...

www.theguardian.com

Kemi Badenoch says she does not speak to women in burqas at constituency surgery

Tory leader says there are ‘more insidious’ issues but she asks people who attend her surgery to remove face coverings
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Kemi Badenoch has said she will not speak to women wearing burqas in her constituency surgery, and argued that employers should be able to ban their staff from wearing face coverings.

The Conservative leader gave her views after the newest Reform MP, Sarah Pochin, triggered a debate over the subject by pressing Keir Starmer on whether he would follow the lead of other European countries such as France in banning the burqa.
 
nycfan said:


Saying things (even provocative or incorrect things) and flying flags cannot be allowed?



No, that does not “count” as due process.
Click to expand...

We’ve gone from an administration that didn’t do nearly enough to speak out and defend/explain itself to an administration that talks nonstop but with a firehose of lies. Ideally we’d have a communicative administration that tells the truth. Will that ever happen? In the meantime, I long for Biden’s reticence.
 
nycfan said:


Saying things (even provocative or incorrect things) and flying flags cannot be allowed?



No, that does not “count” as due process.
Click to expand...

I take it Mr. Lankford isn't a lawyer?

He seems to take the trump, if we say it then it must be law, approach.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
So, a majority support overall deportations and a narrow majority thinks that he's only focusing on deporting criminals (which isn't true, by the way), but a wide majority also think that they should get trials first (and yet most aren't), a clear majority doesn't support "Trump's approach" to deporting immigrants as opposed to his "goals" (if you don't support his actual approach to deporting immigrants, then why would you support the deportations at all?), and clear pluralities think that his deportations will weaken our economy and that he's deporting more people than they thought he would.

Well, that just clears everything up and isn't filled with contradictory information at all - a majority doesn't like how he's handling the deportations but still supports them, they overwhelmingly think that non-US citizens still deserve trials before being locked up or deported and yet they aren't (but they still support Trump deporting them), and they falsely believe that Trump 2.0 is only focusing on deporting criminals. A lot of ignorance, nativism, and refusal to see what is actually happening is running wild across the country right now.
Click to expand...
You're right that a lot of this polling reflects contradictions, people supporting deportations in theory but not liking the reality, thinking Trump’s targeting only criminals despite the facts, and saying migrants deserve due process while supporting a system that denies it. That mix of ignorance, nativism, and cognitive dissonance is real.

But I also think the Democratic Party’s muddy and fragmented messaging is part of the problem. During Trump’s first term, when Democrats were united and forceful in condemning his immigration policies, especially during the family separation crisis, it hurt him politically. His numbers dropped as the public actually saw the consequences of his approach.

That kind of clarity is missing now. Leaders like Schumer and Jeffries have been cautious, and sometimes even complicit, in reinforcing the idea that Democrats are “tough” on the border to win back swing voters. But that only serves to validate Trump’s frame.

The drop in support for Trump’s immigration policies when people were confronted with specific stories, like that of Abrego Garcia, shows what’s possible. Chris Van Hollen and others who pushed that story did what Democrats need to do more often, cut through abstractions and show the human cost of these policies. When the human stakes are made clear and consistent, public opinion can shift.

So no, better Democratic messaging alone won’t eliminate the nativism and misinformation, but failing to offer a coherent moral and political alternative cedes the ground entirely. They need to keep the heat on, consistently and unapologetically.
 
nycfan said:


Guy who was CEO of a company that cheated government healthcare programs of over a billion dollars eager to remove people from the rolls of government healthcare programs…

Background:

“… Rick Scott’s opponents have cried foul over his tenure as head of a hospital chain that paid the biggest health care fraud fine in history.

In 2000 and 2003, Columbia/HCA agreed to pay fines and penalties totaling $1.7 billion for cheating federal programs that serve the military, the elderly and the poor.

Scott, who was never charged, said he was unaware of any fraud and resigned as CEO in 1997.

What no one has ever satisfactorily answered is what, if anything, did Scott know and when did he know it.…”

www.naplesnews.com

Naples Daily News

Over his two campaigns for governor, Rick Scott’s opponents have cried foul over his tenure as head of a hospital...
www.naplesnews.com www.naplesnews.com
Click to expand...

Sounds like the norm modus operandi, keep me making money and maintain my plausible deniability.
 
Paine said:
You're right that a lot of this polling reflects contradictions, people supporting deportations in theory but not liking the reality, thinking Trump’s targeting only criminals despite the facts, and saying migrants deserve due process while supporting a system that denies it. That mix of ignorance, nativism, and cognitive dissonance is real.

But I also think the Democratic Party’s muddy and fragmented messaging is part of the problem. During Trump’s first term, when Democrats were united and forceful in condemning his immigration policies, especially during the family separation crisis, it hurt him politically. His numbers dropped as the public actually saw the consequences of his approach.

That kind of clarity is missing now. Leaders like Schumer and Jeffries have been cautious, and sometimes even complicit, in reinforcing the idea that Democrats are “tough” on the border to win back swing voters. But that only serves to validate Trump’s frame.

The drop in support for Trump’s immigration policies when people were confronted with specific stories, like that of Abrego Garcia, shows what’s possible. Chris Van Hollen and others who pushed that story did what Democrats need to do more often, cut through abstractions and show the human cost of these policies. When the human stakes are made clear and consistent, public opinion can shift.

So no, better Democratic messaging alone won’t eliminate the nativism and misinformation, but failing to offer a coherent moral and political alternative cedes the ground entirely. They need to keep the heat on, consistently and unapologetically.
Click to expand...

I can’t rightly blame a political party that does not promote, even opposes, ignorant and anti-constitutional republican democracy stances taken by people who have had every chance to know better.
 
donbosco said:
I can’t rightly blame a political party that does not promote, even opposes, ignorant and anti-constitutional republican democracy stances taken by people who have had every chance to know better.
Click to expand...
I want to be clear that I’m not placing sole blame on the Democratic Party here. Many voters absolutely should have known better, especially after seeing Trump’s first term. People had every opportunity to understand what was coming.

My goal isn’t to excuse voter ignorance or deny personal responsibility, it’s to try to paint a fuller picture of how we got to this political moment. And part of that involves recognizing the political choices Democrats have made over the years that have contributed to the current landscape.

Too often, instead of challenging Trump’s immigration framing head-on, Democratic leaders have tried to split the difference or avoid the fight entirely. Schumer, Jeffries, and others have accepted key elements of Trump’s narrative on the border, which only legitimizes his position in the public mind. This is strategic malpractice at the very least.

We saw during Trump’s first term that when Democrats stood united and forcefully against his immigration policies that they had the power to shape public opinion, but they have to try.

Again, this doesn’t absolve voters of their responsibilities. But if we want to change the outcomes, we have to be honest about how leadership on both sides has shaped the terrain we're fighting on.
 
Just to clarify something that I think sometimes gets lost in translation: I’m not a “both sides” guy in the conventional sense.

I don’t think the Democratic and Republican parties are equally to blame for where we are. The GOP has gone completely off the rails. Authoritarian, nativist, and captured by a reactionary billionaire class that has no interest in democracy or working-class well-being. That, to me, is obvious.

But because I assume most people here already understand the depth of the Republican Party’s degeneration, I tend to focus my criticism more on the Democratic Party. Not because I think they’re equally bad, but because they’re still a viable vehicle for governance and change. Which means their strategic choices, messaging failures, and missed opportunities matter and are worth challenging.

If we want to stop the slide toward right-wing dominance, the Democratic Party has to do better; not just ethically but politically. I have worked to see the Democratic Party win elections like many of you have. I want them to meet the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top