Fareed Spot On as usual

[Callatoroy]

1 is an impossibility. I’d expect more from Fareed.

# 1 is proven on this board every week.

 

[finesse]

# 1 is proven on this board every week.

RIF. A premise based on a lie followed by a lie doesn't prove anything but the stupidity and or mendacity of whoever pushes it.

 

[Callatoroy]

Fareed Zakaria is the epitome of a Very Serious Person. I liked him back in the day, but liked him less and less the more it became apparent that he has no principles and is basically a human form of an Economist article. I rarely see anything to make me doubt that characterization.

This particular screed is embarrassing because, as people noted, the asylum system was not actually set up to be used in a small number of cases. It was set up as part of an international agreement post WWII and it was designed to be used often and to the scope that world events require. And the reason that it is backlogged is GOP underfunding.

Fareed’s points are fairly common and shared by many leftist media sources when using hindsight to explain the election. The fact that they are all wrong and you are right is typical of your thinking. In reality he’s right and you are wrong.

 

[finesse]

Millions of people abusing asylum? See premise based on a lie.

 

[superrific]

Fareed’s points are fairly common and shared by many leftist media sources when using hindsight to explain the election. The fact that they are all wrong and you are right is typical of your thinking. In reality he’s right and you are wrong.

Who? It is an objective fact that the asylum system was not designed the way that Fareed just described. Fareed knows that, too. If he wants to recommend that asylum be curtailed (which will be done by Trump regardless), that's fine but his description of the origins of asylum is just straight up false.

1. A Brief History - Immigration Equality

The information contained herein is for reference only and may not be up to date. It does not constitute legal advice. You should always consult an attorney regarding your matter. U.S. asylum...

immigrationequality.org

"U.S. asylum law is derived from international agreements written after World War II which provide protection to people fearing or fleeing from persecution. The first agreement, the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, was drafted by the United Nations in response to the large migrations of people in the aftermath of the Second World War. "

 

[JCTarheel82]

I’d expect more from Fareed.

Same. I typically like Fareed but his take here is disappointing and frankly embarrassing.

 

[Icky Mettle]

I’ll add this, and this could be stated in a number threads where we’re having similar discussions: Everybody is dissecting this past election cycle and focusing on everything that the Dems are (supposedly) doing wrong and sounding alarms regarding the future of the party. Fair enough. But it’s one election cycle. We do this almost every election cycle with either party when they don’t prevail during that cycle.

2008 was a great election for Dems. 2010 was great for Pubs. 2012 was good for Dems. 2014 and 2016 were good for Pubs. 2018 and 2020 were good for Dems. And in 2022, when people were expecting a major red wave, it didn’t happen. Pubs got a slight majority in the House and Dems expanded their majority in the Senate. Considering what was expected and what midterms historically look like for the party in the White House, 2022 was a pretty good midterm election for Dems under the circumstances.

Now people want to do an autopsy on the Dems after this election cycle. But the things that people care about— or at least what they focus on— will likely change some in 4 years, and even in 2 years.

It’s certainly important that the Dems try to assess what may have gone wrong or what didn’t seem to work. But we live in very dynamic world and things didn’t seem so bleak just two years ago. Things did seem bleak for pubs then, and many of them were very vocal about replacing Trump with new blood, thinking he was dragging the party down.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

CNN host scathingly rebukes Democrats, citing ignorance that put them out of touch with voters: 'They blew it'

CNN host Fareed Zakaria did not mince words in a seven-minutes opening monologue on his show Sunday where he lectured Democrats for being out of touch with American voters.

www.foxnews.com

1-"An asylum system that was meant for a small number of persecuted individuals was being used by millions to gain legal entry. Instead of shutting it down, liberals branded anyone protesting as heartless and racist.

2-overzealous misuse of law to punish Trump.

3-the party's fixation on identity politics, "that largely came out of the urban academic bubble, but alienated many mainstream voters."

#3 is a joke. Trump and the Republicans won using blatant identity politics. He specifically appealed to the grievances of three groups: men (especially white men), working-class whites, and Evangelical Christians. He told them that they were losing their special identity in America and that only he could save them. Republicans play identity politics every bit as much as Democrats, they just play it to different groups. And as it turns out, they play identity politics even better than Democrats do.

 

[EyeballKid]

I’ll add this, and this could be stated in a number threads where we’re having similar discussions: Everybody is dissecting this past election cycle and focusing on everything that the Dems are (supposedly) doing wrong and sounding alarms regarding the future of the party. Fair enough. But it’s one election cycle. We do this almost every election cycle with either party when they don’t prevail during that cycle.

2008 was a great election for Dems. 2010 was great for Pubs. 2012 was good for Dems. 2014 and 2016 were good for Pubs. 2018 and 2020 were good for Dems. And in 2022, when people were expecting a major red wave, it didn’t happen. Pubs got a slight majority in the House and Dems expanded their majority in the Senate. Considering what was expected and what midterms historically look like for the party in the White House, 2022 was a pretty good midterm election for Dems under the circumstances.

Now people want to do an autopsy on the Dems after this election cycle. But the things that people care about— or at least what they focus on— will likely change some in 4 years, and even in 2 years.

It’s certainly important that the Dems try to assess what may have gone wrong or what didn’t seem to work. But we live in very dynamic world and things didn’t seem so bleak just two years ago.

I can’t stress enough that the levers of our government—the concept of the separation of powers that has sustained our democracy, the country’s faith in the validity of the electoral system, etc—are irreparably harmed.

We aren’t living in the same world that we were in 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, or even 2022.

We are living out the lurch from democracy to authoritarianism that has been seen in dozens of countries over time.

 

[superrific]

I’ll add this, and this could be stated in a number threads where we’re having similar discussions: Everybody is dissecting this past election cycle and focusing on everything that the Dems are (supposedly) doing wrong and sounding alarms regarding the future of the party. Fair enough. But it’s one election cycle. We do this almost every election cycle with either party when they don’t prevail during that cycle.

2008 was a great election for Dems. 2010 was great for Pubs. 2012 was good for Dems. 2014 and 2016 were good for Pubs. 2018 and 2020 were good for Dems. And in 2022, when people were expecting a major red wave, it didn’t happen. Pubs got a slight majority in the House and Dems expanded their majority in the Senate. Considering what was expected and what midterms historically look like for the party in the White House, 2022 was a pretty good midterm election for Dems under the circumstances.

Now people want to do an autopsy on the Dems after this election cycle. But the things that people care about— or at least what they focus on— will likely change some in 4 years, and even in 2 years.

It’s certainly important that the Dems try to assess what may have gone wrong or what didn’t seem to work. But we live in very dynamic world and things didn’t seem so bleak just two years ago. Things did seem bleak for pubs then, and many of them were very vocal about replacing Trump with new blood, thinking he was dragging the party down.

1. You're not wrong about this.
2. I think part of the thing that is getting us, though, is the way we lost. This wasn't even 2016. Trump was showing off on a daily basis that he is completely unhinged and mentally deteriorated. He was making unforced error after unforced error, but it didn't cost him at all. Maybe they weren't errors after all. Maybe Americans don't mind seeing presidents suck off microphones or ride around in garbage trucks. Anyway, Trump did everything he could to alienate Puerto Ricans and they voted for him anyway. He had the stupidest policies of all time. He insulted the entire country as a routine part of his stump speech.

3. Because of the power of the executive branch, it's no longer as much solace to wrest control of Congress in the midterms. Trump will be able to do most of what he wants whether or not he has Congress. He already has the Supreme Court.

 

[superrific]

Republicans play identity politics way more than Democrats, they just play it to different groups. And as it turns out, their identity politics is super easy. Hate all the outgroups.

I am with you. The GOP is nothing but identity politics. I mean, the only thing they actually ran on, other than concepts of a plan and the like, was getting rid of the foreigners who were invading our country.

 

[lawtig02]

I’ll add this, and this could be stated in a number threads where we’re having similar discussions: Everybody is dissecting this past election cycle and focusing on everything that the Dems are (supposedly) doing wrong and sounding alarms regarding the future of the party. Fair enough. But it’s one election cycle. We do this almost every election cycle with either party when they don’t prevail during that cycle.

2008 was a great election for Dems. 2010 was great for Pubs. 2012 was good for Dems. 2014 and 2016 were good for Pubs. 2018 and 2020 were good for Dems. And in 2022, when people were expecting a major red wave, it didn’t happen. Pubs got a slight majority in the House and Dems expanded their majority in the Senate. Considering what was expected and what midterms historically look like for the party in the White House, 2022 was a pretty good midterm election for Dems under the circumstances.

Now people want to do an autopsy on the Dems after this election cycle. But the things that people care about— or at least what they focus on— will likely change some in 4 years, and even in 2 years.

It’s certainly important that the Dems try to assess what may have gone wrong or what didn’t seem to work. But we live in very dynamic world and things didn’t seem so bleak just two years ago. Things did seem bleak for pubs then, and many of them were very vocal about replacing Trump with new blood, thinking he was dragging the party down.

The handwringing is really all for naught, in my view. The lesson of this election, as with most global elections in the last eight years, is that when people are angry, you don't want to be the incumbent. We've had three months since January 2017 in which the president's job approval has been above 50%. If Trump had been president the last four years, the Dems would almost certainly have dominated this year. Likewise, if Haley or DeSantis had been the nominee instead of Trump, the Pub would still have been likely to win, and probably by more than Trump did.

The "Fuck Your Feelings" and "Feelings Are Not Facts" Party voted entirely on their feelings, not on the facts, and a bunch of tuned-out, mostly apolitical people followed them. So be it. Dems just need to be prepared to benefit from the same dynamic in four years when Americans are highly likely to be just as angry, and likely angrier, than they are now.

 

[Centerpiece]

CNN host scathingly rebukes Democrats, citing ignorance that put them out of touch with voters: 'They blew it'

CNN host Fareed Zakaria did not mince words in a seven-minutes opening monologue on his show Sunday where he lectured Democrats for being out of touch with American voters.

www.foxnews.com

1-"An asylum system that was meant for a small number of persecuted individuals was being used by millions to gain legal entry. Instead of shutting it down, liberals branded anyone protesting as heartless and racist.

2-overzealous misuse of law to punish Trump.

3-the party's fixation on identity politics, "that largely came out of the urban academic bubble, but alienated many mainstream voters."

I will agree with Fareed on points number 1 and 3 (immigration and identity politics) but point #2? About trump being charged and prosecuted for crimes he committed? No. Get the fuck outta here with that one Fareed. Do the crime, do the time, every time. But the other two points he made hold water.

 

[superrific]

I will agree with Fareed on points number 1 and 3 (immigration and identity politics) but point #2? About trump being charged and prosecuted for crimes he committed? No. Get the fuck outta here with that one Fareed. Do the crime, do the time, every time. But the other two points he made hold water.

Well, on #1, he's objectively wrong about how the asylum system was designed. He's also objectively wrong that Biden was somehow blind to the border. The problem is that Trump has given people the impression that policy changes are about signing a piece of paper and then it's done.

The immigration policy announced in 2024 was literally started in 2022. It just takes time. And who knows if it would have started earlier if not for the pandemic.

It's important to remember that the courts were telling Biden that all the plans were illegal. Trump's programs were illegal. Biden's programs were blocked. The pandemic authority expired.

 

[finesse]

I will agree with Fareed on points number 1 and 3 (immigration and identity politics) but point #2? About trump being charged and prosecuted for crimes he committed? No. Get the fuck outta here with that one Fareed. Do the crime, do the time, every time. But the other two points he made hold water.

How many times does the lies in 1 have to be refuted ? The numbers are wrong, the reasons he gives are wrong and he knows that.

 

[Centerpiece]

#3 is a joke. Trump and the Republicans won using blatant identity politics. He specifically appealed to the grievances of three groups: men (especially white men), working-class whites, and Evangelical Christians. He told them that they were losing their special identity in America and that only he could save them. Republicans play identity politics every bit as much as Democrats, they just play it to different groups. And as it turns out, they play identity politics even better than Democrats do.

I’ll agree to a point, but I don’t think identity politics helped the Dems. Fareed made a good point on things like the term LatinX. We say “men and women” we don’t say MenX. It’s lazy to think folks can’t read, write or say “Latinos and Latinas”. When I first heard the term “LatinX “ I was baffled… and asked my wife (who is fluent in Spanish and is neck deep in helping our Hispanic community) about that term… and she tried to explain it, said she didn’t particularly care for it and she also claimed none of her friends, colleagues or families in that community cared for it either. It’s like the Democrats or liberal side of the aisle was looking for a solution to a problem that didn’t exist by trying to invent a new word specifically associated with indentity.

 

[Icky Mettle]

I can’t stress enough that the levers of our government—the concept of the separation of powers that has sustained our democracy, the country’s faith in the validity of the electoral system, etc—are irreparably harmed.

We aren’t living in the same world that we were in 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, or even 2022.

We are living out the lurch from democracy to authoritarianism that has been seen in dozens of countries over time.

I agree with what you and super said. I think that is a separate matter from the finger pointing we are seeing. But, yeah, this was definitely a bad election cycle to have a bad election cycle and it’s hard for most informed people to wrap their heads around.

 

[Lando]

There’s a certain absurdity to a CNN host talking about someone being out of touch with America.