Jump to content
Null

homersapien

Gold Donor
  • Posts

    46,015
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

homersapien last won the day on August 21 2016

homersapien had the most liked content!

About homersapien

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

7,483 profile views

homersapien's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges

8k

Reputation

  1. How Elise Stefanik and the GOP sanitize ‘great replacement’ ugliness By Greg Sargent Nothing gets Republicans like Rep. Elise Stefanik angrier than reciting their own words back to them at a politically inconvenient moment. So it is that the New York lawmaker is lashing out at critics who have noted her flirtation with “great replacement theory” in the wake of the horrific racist shooting in her home state. The online screed of alleged Buffalo shooter Payton Gendron posits a conspiracy to exterminate and replace native-born Whites in Western nations. He explicitly labels this a planned “genocide." Stefanik, meanwhile, declared in ads last September that Democrats would legalize undocumented immigrants in a “PERMANENT ELECTION INSURRECTION.” That’s a vile replacement trope pushed by the No. 3 in the House GOP leadership. Confronted by this in the wake of Gendron’s alleged mass murder of mostly Black victims, a Stefanik adviser insisted she has “never advocated for any racist position,” while raging against “sickening” reporting and a “disgusting low for the left.” Actually, the “disgusting low” was committed by Stefanik herself. Because in this episode we see how Republicans like Stefanik launder and sanitize these ideas in ways that insinuate them ever deeper into mainstream discourse. The extent to which “great replacement” ideas have migrated from the fringe into something more routine among Republican lawmakers appears new. As many have noted, Fox News’s Tucker Carlson has relentlessly promoted versions of the idea, and numerous Republican officials have done the same. What’s different is the careful mainstreaming of fantasies about a deliberate plot to replace native-born Americans. That puts a new spin on garden-variety nativism or even on various forms of racial nationalism that envision Whiteness as central to American identity, notes Yale professor Philip Gorski, an expert in these movements. “It’s been gradually moving from the fringes into the mainstream,” Gorski told me. “First it was the entertainment wing of the GOP. Now it’s the political wing as well.” Let’s note that this doesn’t mean Republicans are to blame for the shooting. The point is that “great replacement” ideas — which apparently inspired other racist mass shootings in Pittsburgh, El Paso and elsewhere — have gained diffusion beyond the fringes via various processes, and Republicans like Stefanik have played a part in them. How does this mainstreaming happen? Experts have described several mechanisms. Case in point: A speaker floats “great replacement” ideas — then claims it is intended as racially neutral. Carlson is an expert at this ruse: Oozing with phony piety, he insists he’s just disinterestedly observing what Democrats, in supporting immigration, actually want to happen. Of course, Democrats support immigration for many reasons utterly unconnected to electoral politics. What’s more, given that Latinos may be shifting Republican — and that gaining citizenship takes many years — Carlson cannot even claim with any certainty that this will electorally benefit Democrats in the immediate or long term. So his motive for railing about this cannot be chalked up to a mere disinterested observation about Democrats’ political incentives. What exactly is the true nature of his warning to native-born Americans? What is he trying to get them to fear? Stefanik also plays this sanctimonious game: How dare anyone discern any racial overtones in her warning that native-born Americans should fear permanent subjugation from the largely non-White immigrants in their midst! What an absolutely outrageous suggestion! Similarly, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick of Texas has declared that Democrats would effect a “silent revolution” by “allowing” an “invasion” of migrants. Patrick carefully couched this as a warning about “millions of voters” set to impose their will on the current population, and we’ve heard talk about imported voters from other Republicans, including Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. Or take J.D. Vance, the GOP Senate nominee from Ohio. He recently claimed that President Biden’s “open border” will ensure “more Democrat voters pouring into this country.” But once again, for the same reasons that Carlson and Stefanik cannot be permitted to get away with this scam of feigning racial neutrality, none of these Republicans can pretend to be warning only of electoral consequences. This sort of trickery works on still another level: It recasts racist conspiracy theorizing in a more acceptable form. As Gorski puts it, the talk about new voters is really a “fig leaf to hide white supremacy.” “By wrapping up ‘great replacement theory’ in concerns about democracy, they’re injecting the theory into our public conversation,” Gorski told me, noting that this moves it “from the white supremacist fringes into the conservative mainstream.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/16/elise-stefanik-tucker-carlson-buffalo-shooting-great-replacement/
  2. "Replacement Theory" is very much a creation of the Republican Party - which is now the party of white supremacy. And it's not just their racist voters who embrace it, there is a long list of Republican politicians and media supporters who are promoting it. If the country doesn't stop these people, our democracy is doomed. .
  3. And the Taliban responds......
  4. Complaining about immigrant babies getting fed while there are shortages in other parts of the country speaks for itself, no matter how you try to spin it.
  5. Probably. Republicans consider crazy a feature, not a problem.
  6. Well, can't say he doesn't understand his audience.
  7. Stupidity comes with a cost and it has cost the U.S. plenty.
  8. I agree. The basis of our problem is less Trump than it is our system. Trump is more of a symptom - albeit a very severe one - than the basis. Our political system is basically corrupt and it starts with money.
  9. He doesn't think he lost. He thinks he actually won. And an overwhelming majority of Republicans believe him - many of whom are in power at all levels of government - and are committed to tilting elections in his favor. I still have enough faith in Americans - if not our current electoral system - to think the country will ultimately reject Trump and Trumpism in the long term but that will happen sooner if he gets another shot. Meanwhile, I think you are in denial. Trump is much more of a narcissistic authoritarian than you think. He is drunk on his political power and there's not enough Republicans who have the "gonads" to stop him. Authoritarians don't typically resign voluntarily, especially narcissistic ones. There's little reason to think Trump would.
  10. Biden doesn't have magical powers over nature. (Only Trump has those. ) All Biden can do is promote policies to minimize the effect of the next wave on the American people. MAGA Republicans are resisting these measures. That's not Biden's fault. As for those fools who deliberately push lies and nonsense designed to discourage people from protecting themselves from the worst effects of covid - all for the sake of promoting their MAGA politics, of course I think it's absolutely "fair" for them to suffer for following their own propaganda. We're far better off without them. They are enemies of common sense and the general welfare of our country. I find it deliciously ironic for them to die as a direct result of following their own evil propaganda.
  11. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/13/white-house-vaccines-covid-funding-impasse-00032319 White House prepares to ration vaccines as Covid funding impasse looms The government’s funds are running out. Tough decisions may soon present themselves. By Adam Cancryn 05/13/2022 04:30 AM EDT A painful and foreboding reality is setting in for the White House as it enters a potentially dangerous stretch of the Covid fight: It may soon need to run its sprawling pandemic response on a shoestring budget. Just two months after the administration unveiled a nearly 100-page roadmap out of the crisis, doubts are growing about Congress’ willingness to fund the nation’s fight. It has forced Biden officials to debate deep cuts to their Covid operation and game out ways to keep the federal effort afloat on a month-by-month basis. Among the sacrifices being weighed are limiting access to its next generation of vaccines to only the highest-risk Americans — a rationing that would have been unthinkable just a year ago, when the White House touted the development and widespread availability of vaccines as the clearest way out of the pandemic. But as the government’s cash reserves dwindle, officials are increasingly concluding that these types of difficult choices will soon have to be made. And they are quietly preparing to shift responsibility for other key parts of the pandemic response to the private sector as early as 2023. “There’s a great deal of concern that we’re going to be caught shorthanded,” said one person familiar with the discussions. “On the face of it, it’s absurd.” The contingency planning is aimed at preserving the bare-minimum tools needed to protect against the virus this year, federal officials and others familiar with the discussions said. But many of those decisions still hinge on Congress authorizing $10 billion in new Covid spending, a prospect that remains uncertain in the face of GOP opposition. Senate Republicans have stalled the funding request for weeks over demands they first get an unrelated vote on President Joe Biden’s decision to end Covid-era border restrictions. Despite Biden administration warnings the U.S. could record 100 million more infections through the fall and winter, some GOP lawmakers are also separately skeptical that there’s an urgent need for more money, accusing the administration of failing to account for the hundreds of billions of dollars it has already spent. Should the Senate manage to break its impasse, people familiar with the planning said that the funding would still only be enough to keep the government’s core Covid activities running. Nearly half that amount would immediately go toward paying the administration’s debt to drug company Pfizer, which has yet to be fully compensated for supplying 20 million doses of its antiviral treatment earlier this year. The roughly $5 billion remaining would likely be split among investments to bolster supplies of tests, treatments and vaccines. Under a best-case scenario, the administration might make those stockpiles last through the end of the year. Even then, the White House’s ability to react to a dangerous new variant would be severely limited, and funding to aid the global response would be nonexistent. But at worst, the people said, the richest country in the world could find itself out of money to combat a Covid resurgence on its own soil. “All that needs to happen is to have a variant emerge that’s highly infectious and causes more morbidity and mortality and we’re back to ground zero,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, which represents public health workers. “We have not finished the job.” The stubborn difficulty in providing new funding for the emergency response has cast a pall over the administration, where officials view Biden’s ability to keep Covid under control as essential to the success of his presidency. The White House in recent months sought credit for effectively ending the crisis, touting its vaccination campaign and widespread distribution of tests and therapeutics as key to allowing most Americans to safely resume their everyday lives. Yet the administration has struggled simultaneously to make the case for pouring continued resources to fight the pandemic — with officials surprised by the level of Republican resistance and unwilling to hold up other legislative initiatives to use them as vehicles for getting Covid funding passed. The White House’s initial $22.5 billion request was cut to $15.6 billion in March, but that allocation fell apart after House Democrats objected to paying for it by clawing back Covid funds from individual states. Republicans further whittled the deal down to $10 billion and demanded a separate immigration vote. Biden and fellow Democrats sought to put the funding in a larger Ukraine aid package. But they decided this week to decouple the two and no clear strategy remains for breaking the stalemate. Without the money to keep its Covid operations running, Biden allies say they now fear a resurgence of the virus in the summer or fall could wipe out the gains the president has staked his health record on — and plunge the country back into crisis just ahead of the midterms. “Inaction in Congress is already forcing difficult and unnecessary compromises that have dire consequences for the American people,” a White House spokesperson said, adding that failing to authorize additional funding would force “even more difficult tradeoffs.” Biden officials have stressed to lawmakers that securing funding now is critical to the administration’s preparedness later this year, particularly when it comes to purchasing new vaccines meant to better target Omicron variants. The government can’t commit to purchasing them until it has the money, sparking concerns that competing countries will get first access to the limited supply or that the U.S. will only be able to afford enough shots for the highest-risk populations. More immediately, the administration is holding off investing in the manufacturing of potential new Covid treatments, people familiar with the matter said. Biden officials originally planned to aid the development of a pair of antiviral pills that could expand the government’s arsenal of treatments that cut the risk of severe illness in infected patients. Instead, that money has now been withheld in case it’s needed for more urgent priorities. Within the administration, the funding stalemate has also prompted fresh deliberations over the long-term viability of the Covid response. While the White House has publicly maintained it needs at least $22.5 billion from Congress overall this year, there is internal acknowledgment that getting anything beyond the initial $10 billion investment is a long shot. “They’ve never suggested that $10 billion would last very long,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who met last week with White House Covid coordinator Ashish Jha on the issue. “But $10 billion may be the most that there’s any appetite for right now.” On a private call with health experts last Thursday, Jha said some lawmakers have floated winding down the federal subsidies that guarantee free Covid vaccines and treatments to all Americans instead, suggesting private insurers take over the process. The White House doesn’t view that as an immediate option, Jha said, according to three people on the call, due to how complex and disruptive it would be for Americans and the health system. But other administration officials in recent weeks have weighed the prospect of transitioning responsibility for vaccines and some treatments to the traditional insurance market as early as next year, two people familiar with the matter said, spurred by the realization that the government may soon have no other choice. The shift would be complicated and fraught and take months to engineer, the people said, and no decisions have been made. There is also widespread recognition that such a move could represent a setback for the White House’s much-touted pledge to ensure an equitable response, by making it harder for low-income and uninsured people to access and afford vaccines and treatments. “It’s really concerning that, two-plus years into a global pandemic, we’re still needing to have these arguments on how best to protect people,” said Chrissie Juliano, executive director of the Big Cities Health Coalition, which represents metropolitan health departments. “The people who will be impacted the most are the most vulnerable.” Hoping to break the impasse, Jha and other top officials, including senior Biden adviser Steve Ricchetti, have met with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to walk through the looming consequences of not passing additional Covid funding. Among outside allies, there is greater discussion of enlisting governors and prominent health coalitions to call for action on the funds. Yet with little ability left to force Senate Republicans’ hand, there’s growing fear that perhaps the only way to keep the Covid response alive will be for Covid itself to swamp the nation in infections once again. “We need to decide as a country how we want to deal with the fact that Covid’s going to be with us for a long time,” said Bob Kocher, who served on the Obama administration’s National Economic Council. “The path we are perhaps unintentionally choosing leads to a more disruptive, longer and more economically painful Covid experience for America.”
  12. Trump would never oppose his hero Putin. Neither would Tucker, Ted and Paul.
  13. Ghandi said it best for me: "I like your Christ, but not your Christianity".
  14. She is entitled to her position and the freedom to make her own "choice" based on it, just as every other woman in this country is entitled to their position and the right to make their choice. The government has no business dictating to any woman regarding the matter, period.
  15. Great opinion piece! Personally, I am starting to think America can't start to turn itself around until things actually get worse - say for example, Trump succeeding in his efforts to steal the 2024 election. Accordingly, I hope Republicans nominate him again. Let's get this phase of our history behind us.
×
×
  • Create New...