Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[TrickstaPriest]

1 minute ago, Pattern Ghost said:

It says "during the Afghan war," on the site. Doesn't say that the chart shows only expenses tied directly to Afghanistan.

 

 

I appreciate the double checking.  Been wholly busy (for a year and a half and running), so haven't had much resources to check stuff.

[archer]

Well that didn't take very long:

 

Al Qaeda Kingpin Resurfaces In Afghanistan Surrounded By Taliban Security

 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42189/al-qaeda-kingpin-resurfaces-in-afghanistan-surrounded-by-taliban-security

 

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/amin-al-haq-who-helped-osama-bin-laden-escape-us-capture-once-returns-to-taliban/ar-AANVMr7

 

 

Edited to add a backgrounder on the Al-Qaeda and Taliban ties. This article was written shortly after Trump in 2018 announced he was willing to meet and negotiate directly with the Taliban:

 

https://warontherocks.com/2018/09/deadly-cooperation-the-shifting-ties-between-al-qaeda-and-the-taliban/

 

 

[archer]

WHAT WE NEED TO LEARN: LESSONS FROM TWENTY YEARS OF AFGHANISTAN RECONSTRUCTION

by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction

 

https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/lessonslearned/SIGAR-21-46-LL.pdf#page=1

 

If you've ever wanted to read a 140 page official report detailing everything we got wrong in trying to nation-build in Afghanistan, you've come to the right place.

[TrickstaPriest]

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/18/texas-heartbeat-bill-abortions-law/

 

This just reminds me of previous conversations on this topic.

[Ragitsu]

6 hours ago, archer said:

WHAT WE NEED TO LEARN: LESSONS FROM TWENTY YEARS OF AFGHANISTAN RECONSTRUCTION

by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction

 

https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/lessonslearned/SIGAR-21-46-LL.pdf#page=1

 

If you've ever wanted to read a 140 page official report detailing everything we got wrong in trying to nation-build in Afghanistan, you've come to the right place.

 

"nation-build"? Good sir, are you implying that the United States was in Afghanistan for purposes other than hunting down terrorists that were a consistent imminent threat to civilization as we know it?

[wcw43921]

I'm sure Biden is absolutely thrilled to have her "endorsement."  Thrilled.

[Iuz the Evil]

5 minutes ago, wcw43921 said:

I'm sure Biden is absolutely thrilled to have her "endorsement."  Thrilled.

Ouch. I just watched the Rob Lowe roast again this week. The folks that night said it better than I could about her…

[TrickstaPriest]

3 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/18/texas-heartbeat-bill-abortions-law/

 

This just reminds me of previous conversations on this topic.

 

In case people forgot - this bill provides a legal bounty by rewarding anyone who sues anyone connected to abortions - doctors, uber drivers, and so on, while promising to reimburse their legal fees if they win.  You do not have to be a 'damaged party' to enact the lawsuit.

[TrickstaPriest]

Can I move to Texas and sue google maps for listing an abortion clinic?  As a means of earning a living, I mean.  

 

Asking for a friend >_>

[Ternaugh]

14 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

Can I move to Texas and sue google maps for listing an abortion clinic?  As a means of earning a living, I mean.  

 

Asking for a friend >_>

 

The short answer is probably yes, given the way that the law is written, assuming that someone used it to find the clinic.

[TrickstaPriest]

2 minutes ago, Ternaugh said:

The short answer is probably yes, given the way that the law is written, assuming that someone used it to find the clinic.

 

The very structure of this law makes a very mockery of civil court and the concept of standing, which is central to civil law. 

 

It actually financially incentivizes 'races to sue' where a community dogpiles on anyone involved in an abortion in the hopes to be the first to get payouts from the wealthiest targets before anyone else can drain them dry. 

[Pariah]

7 hours ago, wcw43921 said:

I'm sure Biden is absolutely thrilled to have her "endorsement."  Thrilled.

 

Good heavens, Ann Coulter is still alive? I had no idea.

[TrickstaPriest]

2 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

It actually financially incentivizes 'races to sue' where a community dogpiles on anyone involved in an abortion in the hopes to be the first to get payouts from the wealthiest targets before anyone else can drain them dry. 

 

Before I forget my other real point.  It also will lure people to potentially stalk women to 'catch them in the act' to try and get an abortion... and in a stand-your-ground state, with the excuse of 'trying to stop a baby murder', people are going to get shot.

 

I expect if that happens there'll be huge protests/counter-protests, in Texas, but this hopefully won't last that long.

[TrickstaPriest]

I've been reminded that abusive husbands and boyfriends will absolutely have their GFs/wives investigated/attacked for having a miscarriage (a 'suspected abortion'), so they can net a 10k reward check.

 

We are going to see violence/behavior against women that will make Russia look friendly.

[TrickstaPriest]

I suspect women are going to be killing themselves in Texas as well, at a much higher frequency.

 

https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/alabama-woman-shot-in-stomach-charged-with-manslaughter.html

[Ragitsu]

What's the saying? "One step forward, two steps back."?

 

I'm waiting on the "one step".

[Cygnia]

I want my uterus GONE.

[TrickstaPriest]

20 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

I expect if that happens there'll be huge protests/counter-protests, in Texas, but this hopefully won't last that long.

 

I should clarify.  When I say "hopefully this won't last long" - I mean that this law is going to cause such chaos that they'll have to repeal it or risk continual riots.  I really hope 'this law' won't last long.

 

What also scares me is the application of this law to empower a political party to use financial incentives plus legal forces, and to foster violent confrontations, using laws like this.  They are basically empowering 'crazed Q types' to create violent confrontations, and what specificially scares me is that they are making the possible political calculus that the benefit of having their followers violently confront people is worth more than the political loss of encoding such violent action in literal law.

[unclevlad]

3 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

I should clarify.  When I say "hopefully this won't last long" - I mean that this law is going to cause such chaos that they'll have to repeal it or risk continual riots.  I really hope 'this law' won't last long.

 

What also scares me is the application of this law to empower a political party to use financial incentives plus legal forces, and to foster violent confrontations, using laws like this.  They are basically empowering 'crazed Q types' to create violent confrontations, and what specificially scares me is that they are making the possible political calculus that the benefit of having their followers violently confront people is worth more than the political loss of encoding such violent action in literal law.

 

I'm hoping that sanity prevails when this reaches the Supreme Court.  Restricting abortions is the lesser problem;  the HUGE issue is, as was pointed out, eliminating the notion of standing, and letting anyone and their cousin file suit.  Because if this notion is allowed to stand WRT abortion, what *else* will it be applied to?  Jaywalking?  Spitting on the sidewalk?

 

And just in case there's any doubt...the abortion restrictions are untenable IMO.  They're awful.  They're still not the worst aspect of this attempt to *seriously* abrogate civil liberties across the board.

[TrickstaPriest]

4 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

And just in case there's any doubt...the abortion restrictions are untenable IMO.  They're awful.  They're still not the worst aspect of this attempt to *seriously* abrogate civil liberties across the board.

 

This financially incentivizes communities abusing women who miscarry.

 

The thinking behind this reminds me of freaking Sesame Credit

[unclevlad]

2 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

This financially incentivizes communities abusing women who miscarry.

 

The thinking behind this reminds me of freaking Sesame Credit

 

IMO it's Biblical.  Life begins at the moment of conception.  Therefore abortion is by definition murder and a mortal sin, and the Morality Police have no qualms with "incidental consequences" like this, so long as their moral imperative is enforced.  Can also argue it's very Old Testament...really, was EVERYONE in Sodom and Gomorrah guilty?  One of the more terrifying aspects of hard-core ideologists, of any stripe, is they're not concerned with the side effects.

[Ragitsu]

 

[Ternaugh]

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

I'm hoping that sanity prevails when this reaches the Supreme Court.  Restricting abortions is the lesser problem;  the HUGE issue is, as was pointed out, eliminating the notion of standing, and letting anyone and their cousin file suit.  Because if this notion is allowed to stand WRT abortion, what *else* will it be applied to?  Jaywalking?  Spitting on the sidewalk?

 

And just in case there's any doubt...the abortion restrictions are untenable IMO.  They're awful.  They're still not the worst aspect of this attempt to *seriously* abrogate civil liberties across the board.

 

It's already reached the Supreme Court's shadow docket, and they've ruled 5-4 to allow the Texas law to stand.

 

 

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Ternaugh said:

 

It's already reached the Supreme Court's shadow docket, and they've ruled 5-4 to allow the Texas law to stand.

 

 

 

"Stand" isn't quite correct, as I understand it.  They didn't block enforcement, but that isn't a ruling on the merits.  It is, however, bad enough, and will create a total mess.  I can still hope they change their mind later.

 

I will admit to pessimism on that score, however.  But that's joining a litany now...this, voting rights, anti-vax madness, the VERY likely situation that no matter what climate change legislation might get passed now, it'll be tossed out by the next Republican triune...and thus, nothing effective will happen.  It's hard to be sure where we'll be in 10 or 15 years, but I can't see how it's a LOT worse place than now.

[Lectryk]

1 hour ago, Ternaugh said:

 

It's already reached the Supreme Court's shadow docket, and they've ruled 5-4 to allow the Texas law to stand.

 

 

 

They did not allow the law to stand, the denied the request for injunction:  "In light of such issues, we cannot say the applicants have met their burden to prevail in an injunction or stay application"

 

About the law itself, they say:  "In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts."

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf

 

The majority is trying to thread a fine needle, and the way the court handled it wasn't good optics, but hey, that's our politics today.  There is a procedural/martinet element to the slapdown (do it right, punks!) and in justices that were more thoughtful and less ideological, I would say they're actually asking for a chance to re-affirm the constitutionality of Roe v Wade through the power of the court, not just trying to buy time by getting a proper challenge to the law in front of them.