US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9697

On January 16 2018 19:32 Nebuchad wrote:
It's option 2 (well, 3, don't think he did it on purpose).

I must confess I feel much better, I had a really hard time understanding how you could possibly not understand this.

On January 16 2018 19:41 Acrofales wrote:

Ok. I accept your point. It seems more worthy of Glenn Greenwalds journalistic talents.

Although it is a bit alarming that I wasn't particularly surprised when I thought he wrote an unsound slash piece in support of Chelsea Manning, fellow at arms in the fight against government cover-ups.

E: nvm, I clicked through to the article and its primary point is exactly what tomatreides quoted. The cleverer point is tacked on at the end, more like an afterthought than a conclusion.

The main thrust is clearly ranting against Democratic supporters "smearing" Chelsea Manning as a Russian stooge. While the tweet cited is indeed ridiculous, it's not weird many people actually do see her as a traitor and while it's disingenuous to tie it into the new red scare narrative, I don't think Chelsea Manning is the hill progressives should choose to die on.

On January 16 2018 19:57 Nebuchad wrote:


I had such fuckin' hopes for us.

On January 16 2018 20:40 Acrofales wrote:

I understand the point you're making. In general I agree with it. I just don't think that was the main point of the cited article or that it made the point very well.

(1) it's not necessarily the same people supporting Ben Cardin on policy over Chelsea Manning as those who said you should support Clinton because she's a woman, regardless of your policy ideals. Different people saying different things is not hypocrisy even if it is from within the same party.
(2) even if it is the same people, you are relitigating the Democratic presidential primary in order to score "I told you so" points. Where are you trying to go with this? I know GH wants to burn the whole party down, but I assume most are more humble and want to expose and remove the big moneyed interests in the party and return it to representing "the people". This article does not do that at all. Even if we accept that the targets are hypocrites, the call to action in the article is to support Chelsea Manning, and not to protest the moneyed interests.

A California city has brought charges against 12 people who defied a ban on feeding homeless people at a neighborhood park, as officials try to rein in a hepatitis A outbreak that has killed 20 people and prompted mass vaccinations and the bleaching of streets.

Officials in El Cajon, east of San Diego, argue that the ordinance aims to protect the public from hepatitis A, which has mostly affected those who are homeless or use drugs, by preventing the person-to-person transmission of pathogens. But activists have decried it as a draconian measure to criminalize homeless residents.

Jen Loving, a Bay Area advocate who has followed the situation, said it reflected a broader breakdown in trust, with locals losing confidence that their elected representatives have effective solutions for what, in other contexts, might be recognized as a humanitarian disaster.

“From afar, it feels like a community struggling with crisis and wanting consensus in a comprehensive solution to this problem,” said Loving. “This points to a much bigger issue all around the country. All communities are starved for long-term solutions for decreasing homelessness.”

Homelessness in the US has grown by about 1% since 2016, the first increase since the great recession, and it is driven by high rents on the east and west coasts. In San Diego County the numbers rose 5%.

In El Cajon on Sunday, a volunteer organization named Break the Ban manned tables offering breakfast bars, oranges and bananas, hygiene supplies and socks at a local park. Within an hour, the police arrived threatening to arrest those who defied the ban. Volunteers shouted angrily at them, and they began issuing misdemeanor citations.

Scott Dreher, an attorney to the organizers who was present at the event, described the ordinance a restriction on his free-speech rights. “It prevents me from exercising my right to share food with those people in need, which is an expression of speech by action,” he said. “There are other, non-first-amendment-restrictive, ways to accomplish the city’s stated goal of preventing the spread of hep A, namely, by cleaning up the parks and providing and encouraging use of public restrooms and hand-washing.”

Almost 600 people in the county have been infected with the disease, which is spread via fecal contamination, a symptom of the fact that homeless people have few places to use the bathroom and then wash their hands.

As well as spraying bleach and offering vaccinations, officials in San Diego have installed washing stations and erected huge tents to give people some protection from the elements. The city is also making longer-term plans: on Thursday, San Diego’s mayor, Kevin Faulconer, unveiled a homelessness plan that includes a tax hike, central intake hub and more shelter beds.

A homeless man at the feeding event, Berl Crist, said El Cajon, by contrast, “would rather take a hands-off inactive approach, by banning food sharing and making panhandling illegal.”

“It’s not a feeding ban,” said El Cajon spokesperson Monica Zech. “We want to protect the homeless by feeding them in a clean and safe environment. A park isn’t a clean environment.”

On January 16 2018 13:51 mozoku wrote:

Under the law, thirty years of age is pretty much it. That said, I'd much rather my political representatives be modern philosopher-kings then the present day's most eye-catching celebrities--and the fact that much of the electorate apparently either disagrees or is too ignorant realize that name recognition is orthogonal to governing competence makes we question whether self-governance is all it's chalked up to be.

Phrased in another way, I think we'd be much worse off in the direct democracy that seems to be the gold standard modern peoples aspire to.

On January 16 2018 22:55 Mohdoo wrote:
Are people actually pretending Chelsea Manning is worth supporting in an election? The amount of baggage is through the roof. People trying too hard to elevate the wrong trans people only hurting the cause.

On January 16 2018 22:58 Plansix wrote:

People and the article act like this is the general election, not the primary.