Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Old Man]

18 minutes ago, csyphrett said:

It's come out that everything that George Santos said to get elected is false. Is there any repurcussions for that?

 

Why would there be?

[csyphrett]

4 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

Why would there be?

I guess I assumed that when you ran for office you couldn't make up your whole history out of Pleasantville. On the other hand, he is the first gay republican to win his seat if he is gay.

CES  

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

34 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

I guess I can add 'librarians' to the list of 'enemies of the GOP' 😕

 

We've been on there for a while now. 

[Ternaugh]

12 minutes ago, csyphrett said:

I guess I assumed that when you ran for office you couldn't make up your whole history out of Pleasantville. On the other hand, he is the first gay republican to win his seat if he is gay.

CES  

 

I'm sure that there have been many wide stance Republicans elected in the past.

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, Logan D. Hurricanes said:

 

That's like saying Canada should be a world power!

 

 

 

... What?

 

And your point? 🤨

 

[Old Man]

34 minutes ago, csyphrett said:

I guess I assumed that when you ran for office you couldn't make up your whole history out of Pleasantville. On the other hand, he is the first gay republican to win his seat if he is gay.

CES  

 

He has yet to explain his divorce from a woman in 2019. 

 

As for the lies, I find that modern GOP voters support and reward liars.

[Asperion]

If people were to pull everything that someone has a problem with, all bookshelves (traditional,  electronic, or any thing else) would be empty. 

[Lord Liaden]

Here's another good talking point to use with your pro-Trump relatives this Christmas.

 

 

[Pariah]

Apparently one's story can change under threat of a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit.

 

Fox News' Sean Hannity says he knew all along Trump lost the election

[unclevlad]

When your philosophy or faith says to do something, the problem is, it tends to be an absolute.  As such, indirect negative effects become swept under the rug.  Human life begins at the moment of conception, AND human life is the highest value of all...no abortion can ever be countenanced.  No exception for rape, child abuse, health of the mother, or health of the *child*.  No consideration for the social consequences...unwed mothers, unfit mothers, the risk that continuing the pregnancy will lead to both mother and child dying, the medical cost when it's clear the child will be seriously deformed, and may be lucky to live to age 2.  It denies even having the discussion about whether a child that would be born with major defects, but would live...should the parents be allowed to abort?  Maybe the answer's no...but that's a legitimate debate.

 

The book banning movement is in this group.  I think, by and large, they adhere to narrow notions of acceptable.  Promotion of anything outside those notions is Not Acceptable and Must Be Eliminated.  Consequences?  Irrelevant.  I think they're pursuing the book bans for 2 reasons:

1.  As a general measure to silence opposition voices.  This is, IMO, part of the longer-term strategy, by basically controlling the message.  If you can control the message sufficiently, you have control.  Don't think it works?  Fox News.  That's far, far more blatant;  book banning is part of the very long term strategy.  

2.  Book bans are far less likely to run afoul of the courts.  Banning LGBT books IS a form of discrimination...but the civil rights being violated are more subtle, and thus, book bans are much less likely to be rejected.

 

But make no mistake.  The long-term goal, IMO, is to relegate, penalize, and potentially even criminalize what they consider to be Unacceptable Behavior.  This isn't a short term goal, it's a very long term goal.  They know the social climate isn't sufficiently in their favor to do this.  Not now, and not for a long time.  But getting the books banned is a move to change the underlying social fabric to be more conducive to their interests...and they don't care about the consequences.

[unclevlad]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/elon-musk-twitter-finances-debt-tesla-stock/672555/

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

When your philosophy or faith says to do something, the problem is, it tends to be an absolute.  As such, indirect negative effects become swept under the rug.  Human life begins at the moment of conception, AND human life is the highest value of all...no abortion can ever be countenanced.  No exception for rape, child abuse, health of the mother, or health of the *child*.  No consideration for the social consequences...unwed mothers, unfit mothers, the risk that continuing the pregnancy will lead to both mother and child dying, the medical cost when it's clear the child will be seriously deformed, and may be lucky to live to age 2.  It denies even having the discussion about whether a child that would be born with major defects, but would live...should the parents be allowed to abort?  Maybe the answer's no...but that's a legitimate debate.

 

 

One of the many things I find frustrating about the people who typically hold this belief, is that very frequently they have no problem with the death penalty as a punishment for criminals; or police using lethal force, particularly against "those people"; or using military power to destroy a perceived threat. I'm not saying that any of those things are necessarily inherently wrong or unjustifiable, but they do show that this absolutism toward human life is held to only in very narrow circumstances, while exceptions in other circumstances are not only embraced, but not even recognized as part of the same issue. If a line can be drawn where the taking of a life can be justified, then the only issue in any situation is where to draw that line.

[Hermit]

Oh, sadly, I think I can explain that one. Some of them, the attitude is fetus = baby. Baby = Innocent. Criminal however, has done something wrong, not only can criminals be punished, they deserve to be. These same folks avoid nuance much like unclevlad said.  So the 'let the punishment fit the crime' is a forgotten aspect of it. Just punish. Babies though? Innocent of crime, so even if a danger to the mother, well, too bad. The mother had sex, and that, like crime, has consequences by golly. It's an easy attitude to take if you have no personal skin in the game as it has the benefit of not requiring too much thought, AND you get to feel morally superior at the same time.   Sadly this attitude often skips the virtues of empathy, thoughtfulness, and humility.

 

[Cancer]

22 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

 

I'm sure that there have been many wide stance Republicans elected in the past.

 

Like this former senator from Idaho, perhaps.  And this guy from eastern Washington.

[Lord Liaden]

4 hours ago, Hermit said:

Oh, sadly, I think I can explain that one. Some of them, the attitude is fetus = baby. Baby = Innocent. Criminal however, has done something wrong, not only can criminals be punished, they deserve to be. These same folks avoid nuance much like unclevlad said.  So the 'let the punishment fit the crime' is a forgotten aspect of it. Just punish. Babies though? Innocent of crime, so even if a danger to the mother, well, too bad. The mother had sex, and that, like crime, has consequences by golly. It's an easy attitude to take if you have no personal skin in the game as it has the benefit of not requiring too much thought, AND you get to feel morally superior at the same time.   Sadly this attitude often skips the virtues of empathy, thoughtfulness, and humility.

 

 

But letting babies die from hunger, disease, or abuse after they're born is apparently not their concern.

[Hermit]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

But letting babies die from hunger, disease, or abuse after they're born is apparently not their concern.

"Are there no prisons? Are there no work houses?"

[csyphrett]

1 hour ago, Hermit said:

"Are there no prisons? Are there no work houses?"

Stay in your lane. That's my line. You're the friendly helpful guy. I'm not

 

CES

Jan 6th insurrectionist on bail decided that he was going to assemble a group to kill the thirty seven FBI agents who were involved in his arrest. One of his friends dropped the dime on him.

CES 

[unclevlad]

9 minutes ago, csyphrett said:

Jan 6th insurrectionist on bail decided that he was going to assemble a group to kill the thirty seven FBI agents who were involved in his arrest. One of his friends dropped the dime on him.

CES 

 

Stupid is as stupid does.  The Jan. 6th case for this idiot hadn't come to trial, so it's likely he wasn't facing anything all that serious.  NOW?

 

From LA Times:

Quote

They are charged with conspiracy, retaliating against a federal official, interstate communication of a threat and solicitation to commit a crime of violence.

 

Without looking up the potential sentences...these sound like they should add up to a nice 20-30 year stretch.

[Hermit]

And they're from Tennessee.

 

I can't even manage pretending to be surprised.

[Lord Liaden]

It's okay, Herm. You're proof to all of us that the gene pool of Tennesseans is not stagnant. 👌

[Old Man]

I mean, the occasional mutant is bound to pop up now and then...

[unclevlad]

As they say, a broken clock is right twice a day....

[Hermit]

My bitterness aside about my state I should say that you can find a lot of good folk here. Unfortunately, I sometimes feel their voices are quelled by our state leaders and an angry mean minority

[dmjalund]

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

As they say, a broken clock is right twice a day....

 It so much if it is digital

 

[unclevlad]

George Santos admits he lied about several things, but then tries to say, it's nothing everyone does it.

 

I wonder if a recall effort is allowed.  Technically, perhaps, he's not a criminal, but he's a conscience-deficient slimeball.