Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

The latest decree from the Ministry of Truth.

 

The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases — including “fetus” and “transgender” — in any official documents being prepared for next year’s budget.



Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”

In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.

 

Yes, the phrases "science-based" and "evidence-based" are now forbidden, along with other scary words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Simon said:

In total agreement with the anti "but what about..." statements.

If you want to talk about what Hillary did (or did not) do, that's fine.  But it's entirely separate from what anyone else did.  There is no equivalency.  If you're accused of murdering someone, you don't get to point at Jeffrey Dahmer and say "but he murdered and ate people!".  That's not a defense, it's a deflection.

 

In regards to Hillary Clinton, listen to Old Man -- I work in "security" as well.  What she did in regards to a private email server wasn't great, but is NOTHING compared to what goes on daily at all levels of DC politics.  Not deflection, just case in point of her actions being par for the course:  do you think that Trump's cell (from which he constantly tweets) is secured?  How about the email services of Pence, Ivanka, Jared Kushner, or other top-ranking officials?  Think they're not using their own?  It's a depressingly common occurrence....and not actionable (yet) without flagrant disregard for safety/security.

 

I can semi-vouch for Simon's expertise in this field >_>

 

Hillary probably should be looked at for the emails, but so should so many, many others.  Running private email servers is apparently an epidemic in Washington...  and if you think that's bad, how many stories have come out this last year of critical government and military infrastructures being raided? 

 

I haven't forgotten the Republican voter databank records being available without password protection on Amazon AWS servers X_x  But unless you can understand the data (and it did appear to be anonymised?), it's more interesting for how and what data is being stored to begin with.  For real messes, the OPM (Office of Personnel Management) breach is hideous.  People I know with TOS who haven't been government employees for years have still been impacted.  I can't imagine the amount of special agents who's identities are now out.  So if we are talking about prosecution, I hate to say it but that feels a heck of a lot more political than anything else.  Our government's data security is well over the hill.  The email servers need to be dealt with, but there's simply so much even more critical areas that need to be dealt with.

 

In general, if you find corruption in a party, it's got to be dealt with.  No one is exempt.  I don't know that the email servers qualify as corruption (at least by personal definition), merely reckless.  But not nearly as reckless as our whole government IT infrastructure right now.

 

As a vague security stab, Trump's goading of Kim Jong Un "just you wait for what's coming" might have led to the North Koreans searching for, and unearthing, our assassination strategy coordinated with South Korea.  What a ridiculous situation it is, when our strategic military personnel are struggling to work around a PotUS twitter account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, people can dog pile on the ” But they do...!” issue all they want, it does not change the fact that when one person is investigated endlessly despite earlier investigations finding no evidence of guilt and investigated for trivial matters by her political opponents it creates a situation where questioning the motives of the investigators is reasonable and valid.

 

And again remember a republican basically admitted openly that the hearings were meant to hurt hillary in the poles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Armitage said:

The latest decree from the Ministry of Truth.

 

 

 

 

Yes, the phrases "science-based" and "evidence-based" are now forbidden, along with other scary words.

 

I came across this article also.  I couldn't figure whether the decree was coming from outside the CDC, or if it was CDCs leadership making the decree to avoid having budget items shot down summarily by congress.

 

It is tempting to say that self censorship is as bad or worse than external censorship, but if the CDC wants to do the research but wants to spare it from Republican law makers' budget cutting at least research still gets done.  On the other hand, if the administration has simply decided to nix all such research, valuable time and data could be lost, and the American people lose out.  So, where this decree is coming from matters.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Old Man said:

Congresswoman Speier predicted today that Trump will fire Mueller next Friday while the House GOP simultaneously terminates the congressional Russia investigation. 

 

How does this make any sense? In what other career field can you fire someone leading an official investigation against you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tech priest support said:

At which time I believe a huge number of Americans should declare the trump presidency a criminal enterprise and refuse to recognize or obey it.  You know, exactly what trump supporters would do if a democrat President shut down investigations against him.

 

 

 

So... exactly how do you imagine this would look?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyocum said:

 

So... exactly how do you imagine this would look?  

Well, I could see some states declaring that they would not follow directives emanating from the current government in washington. Several federal agencies might begin a covert campaign to sabotage policies. Perhaps some police openly refuse to enforce laws handed down from Washington under the current government.  There could be mass acts of defiance of draconian laws and orders, like when people armed themselves to feed and help poor and homeless people in defiance of laws making helping the homeless illegal . see here: https://www.activistpost.com/2015/12/well-armed-activists-openly-defy-texas-law-to-feed-the-homeless-hundreds-clothed-and-fed.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Tech priest support said:

Well, I could see some states declaring that they would not follow directives emanating from the current government in washington. Several federal agencies might begin a covert campaign to sabotage policies. Perhaps some police openly refuse to enforce laws handed down from Washington under the current government.  There could be mass acts of defiance of draconian laws and orders, like when people armed themselves to feed and help poor and homeless people in defiance of laws making helping the homeless illegal . see here: https://www.activistpost.com/2015/12/well-armed-activists-openly-defy-texas-law-to-feed-the-homeless-hundreds-clothed-and-fed.html

 

Your solution to the problems caused by a president who calls into question just about every established norm of modern political life is to cause more problems, sow more dissent and strife, and actively rebel against lawful authority?  Basically, do Trump stuff, just moreso?  Just making sure I got you right.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

 

Also defying the law isn't automatically wrong. Some if the worst horrors in human history were perfectly legal. Likewise many great things started as illegal act.

 

Personally I view America law as utterly corrupt and not simply unjust but actively hostile to justice. As is the America legal system is something that one must often  defy to do the right thing. I have as much respect for the law as it deserves, which is virtually none. Democrats Pollard by the rules and the law for 8 years with Obama and republicans basically shut down the presidency the people overwhelmingly elected for 8 years. Now we have a republican president talking and acting like a dictator. Time to take the gloves off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes you fight fire with fire. Sometimes you realize you are fighting in your house and if you fight back with fire you'll just burn your home down faster and the only hope is to be the most super reasonable person ever and hope that you can calm the pyro down.

 

Sometimes you have to lead from the front.

 

Sometimes you have to be a calm, rational adult.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sociotard said:

Sometimes you fight fire with fire. Sometimes you realize you are fighting in your house and if you fight back with fire you'll just burn your home down faster and the only hope is to be the most super reasonable person ever and hope that you can calm the pyro down.

 

Sometimes you have to lead from the front.

 

Sometimes you have to be a calm, rational adult.

 

The democrats were the mature adult for 8 years while republicans threw a huge ongoing tantrum, filibustering everything democrats tried to do. McConnell even advocated a bill that Obama said he would support so he filibustered his own bill. We were the adults, and we got 8 years of childish spite thrown in our faces for it. Now we have a ranting man baby in the whitehouse who seems like his whole mission is to spit on democrats by eliminating every single thing Obama managed to do and he's getting wide support. 

 

As to burning our own house down, yes. I would rather burn it all down that let it become a country where only one party had taken over had any effective power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ragitsu said:

Civil disobedience seemed to work pretty well half a century ago. At the least, it was a catalyst that could not be ignored.

 

There is a difference between civil and institutional disobedience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're had some institution disobedience to the current regime. Clifornia has practiced the sanctuary city doctrine in open defiance of orders to cease it. Likewise we had institutional disobedience from the right when a judge defied the supreme court and placed a religious monument on court grounds.

 

Sheriff Arpaio famously defied federal court orders and maintained racially based harassment of Hispanics.

 

So we've had disobedience on both sides. And both sides have lately taken it to a higher level, like when supporters of cliven Bundy aimed rifles at federal agents during a standoff and very recently when people determined to feed and aid the homeless in defiance of local laws did so while carrying assault weapons after seeing people routinely stopped, cuffed and carried off for doing so while unarmed.

 

Like it or not things are escalating on both sides in America. At this point I think the only questions are when does open conflict start and who wins. Personally I'd rather it be my side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Tech priest support said:

As to burning our own house down, yes. I would rather burn it all down that let it become a country where only one party had taken over had any effective power. 

 

Why don't you say bad things about Obama, for so totally mismanaging the Democratic Party during his tenure as President, that they lost so many elected positions and depth? 

Or about Hillary's blatant power grab (twice!)? 

Or the refusal of the party as a whole to take any appreciable stance on the reduction of the middle class and opportunity for Americans when they could have? 

At least be an equal opportunity anarchist...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tech priest support said:

Like it or not things are escalating on both sides in America. At this point I think the only questions are when does open conflict start and who wins. Personally I'd rather it be my side.

 

That's the attitude that leads to Republican Congressmen being shot at baseball games. Cut it out. I want the overton window shifted the other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, eyocum said:

 

Why don't you say bad things about Obama, for so totally mismanaging the Democratic Party during his tenure as President, that they lost so many elected positions and depth? 

Or about Hillary's blatant power grab (twice!)? 

Or the refusal of the party as a whole to take any appreciable stance on the reduction of the middle class and opportunity for Americans when they could have? 

At least be an equal opportunity anarchist...

 

 

I'm not an anarchist. I believe in a constitutional government as long as all players follow the rules.  I don't talk about some of the things you talk about because they didn't happen in the universe I live in. Some of those things only happened in the "alternate fact" based universe. You know, the one where Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim and Hillary willfully caused the deaths of the behn ghazi staff because reasons. Those things didn't happen in my reality. The democrat party may ave steered things in favor of Hillary, So be it. Recent supreme court decisions allowing unlimited big business finances of campaigns have made political campaigns a rigged game anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×