Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Cygnia]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/marine-murder-rape-plot-rapekrieg-1388238/

[DShomshak]

The latest issue of The Economist (July 23, 2022) is very snarky, even for theThe op-ed suggests that's not qum. High point likely the "Bagehot" column on British affairs, discussing the contest for leadership of the Conservative Party and the PM spot. Notably, the editor sums up the contest this way:

 

"John Stuart Mill once labelled the Conservatives 'the stupid party.' That is unfair. But it is tryue that Tories are suspicious of cleverness. They prize a different characteristic: soundness. This trait is difficult to define. But, like pornography, Conservatives know it when they see it. Roger Scruton, a right-wing tinker, wrote that conservatism's 'essence is inarticulate'. To put it another way: Anything that can be greeted with the guttural baying Conservative MPs use to show approbal ('Yeeeyeeeyeeeyeee') is sound. The choice that party members must now make as they weight up whom to pick as their leader is between cleverness and soundness. Mr Sunak is clever. Liz Truss, the foreign secretary and his opponent, is sound."

 

Guttural baying? Clearly, American conservatives are behind the ball compared to the Mother Country. Considering how often they act like brutes, they should learn to sound like brutes as well.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Lawnmower Boy]

2 hours ago, DShomshak said:

The latest issue of The Economist (July 23, 2022) is very snarky, even for theThe op-ed suggests that's not qum. High point likely the "Bagehot" column on British affairs, discussing the contest for leadership of the Conservative Party and the PM spot. Notably, the editor sums up the contest this way:

 

"John Stuart Mill once labelled the Conservatives 'the stupid party.' That is unfair. But it is tryue that Tories are suspicious of cleverness. They prize a different characteristic: soundness. This trait is difficult to define. But, like pornography, Conservatives know it when they see it. Roger Scruton, a right-wing tinker, wrote that conservatism's 'essence is inarticulate'. To put it another way: Anything that can be greeted with the guttural baying Conservative MPs use to show approbal ('Yeeeyeeeyeeeyeee') is sound. The choice that party members must now make as they weight up whom to pick as their leader is between cleverness and soundness. Mr Sunak is clever. Liz Truss, the foreign secretary and his opponent, is sound."

 

Guttural baying? Clearly, American conservatives are behind the ball compared to the Mother Country. Considering how often they act like brutes, they should learn to sound like brutes as well.

 

Dean Shomshak

I) Roger Scruton is absolutely a tinker. But not one of the good ones. The kind that gets your car torn half down and then spends four months "waiting for parts."

Ii) i refuse to take seriously any evaluation of Truss vs Sunak that fails to take into account his brownness. Though, to be fair, that's what Bagehot means by "clever." Point is, there's sone deniability there

[DShomshak]

Oh, Bagehot sort of winks at the racial aspect in the first paragraph by noting that he's the grandson of Indian immigrants... then says the "prejudice" that might keep him from the top job is against the school he attended: Winchester has produced just one PM, to Eton's 20. Like I said, very snarky. (There's also a bit of more serious analysis elsewhere in the issue, though still with a bit of snark about how each tries to present as the Heir of Thatcher.)

 

Dean Shomshak

[Doc Democracy]

Sunak's race is actually an advantage in the current Conservative leadership contest.  While the membership might not like the idea of foreign brown skinned people coming into the country in boats, Rishi is one of their own.  He is rich, speaks well and went to the right schools.  Never make the mistake that English racism is the same as American racism.

[Pariah]

"We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they're safe as they are in a classroom."

~Sarah Huckabee Sanders

[Lectryk]

4 hours ago, Pariah said:

"We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they're safe as they are in a classroom."

~Sarah Huckabee Sanders

 

Oh, the original form of the quote, and when it took place, are better than this truncated form.

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sanders-abortion-womb-classroom/

 

"

Context

It’s true that Sanders said this. A video of the remark went viral after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that effectively legalized abortion in the U.S., was overturned on June 24, 2022. The clip was recorded a month prior on May 24, however, the same day as the deadly school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. More of Sanders’ speech is featured in the story below.

 

 

Fact Check

On May 24, 2022, Arkansas Republican gubernatorial candidate Sarah Huckabee Sanders made a campaign promise that touched on the subject of abortion, saying, “We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they’re as safe as they are in a classroom, the workplace, a nursing home. Because every stage of life has value. No one greater than the other.” This was a genuine quote.

"

 

And, since she made this *after* the news would have broken ... doubleplusungood the doublethink the modern gop has going on.

 

[Pariah]

Imagine my surprise ... a sitting Representative votes against something that could land him in prison.

20 Republicans, including Rep. Matt Gaetz, vote against anti-human trafficking bill

 

The article includes a list of all 20 names, and they're pretty much who you would expect.

 

 

[BoloOfEarth]

4 minutes ago, Lectryk said:

I wonder if the speech was made before or after the Uvalde news broke?

 

The quote came from her victory speech.  And according to the article:  "The victory came just hours following the deadly massacre at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas."  

[Lawnmower Boy]

https://www.aol.com/news/flooding-central-appalachia-kills-least-032600943-133954575.html

 

I increasingly don't get it: "We are the party that supports minimising this stuff and not doing anything about it as it keeps happening and gets worse and worse." How is this a viable political position going forward?

[TrickstaPriest]

9 minutes ago, Lawnmower Boy said:

https://www.aol.com/news/flooding-central-appalachia-kills-least-032600943-133954575.html

 

I increasingly don't get it: "We are the party that supports minimising this stuff and not doing anything about it as it keeps happening and gets worse and worse." How is this a viable political position going forward?

 

That would be a betrayal of the hate that Fox and Hannity and so on have been putting in them, even though many people will still feel 'they are nice enough'.  But the best thing we can do is be kind and helpful to the people who are being devastated by this stuff.  We can't be 'higher than thou' - we could have been fooled in the right circumstances ourselves.

[unclevlad]

3 hours ago, Lawnmower Boy said:

https://www.aol.com/news/flooding-central-appalachia-kills-least-032600943-133954575.html

 

I increasingly don't get it: "We are the party that supports minimising this stuff and not doing anything about it as it keeps happening and gets worse and worse." How is this a viable political position going forward?

 

Because it's more convenient, cheaper, and therefore more profitable in the short term, to do nothing.  Because the Repubs don't want ANY oversight whatsoever, so they can profiteer easier.  They'll assert that

a)  we all know weather runs in cycles, so who says this is climate change?

b)  even if it is, who says man's actions are contributory?

 

because there's no smoking-gun proof.  

 

3 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

That would be a betrayal of the hate that Fox and Hannity and so on have been putting in them, even though many people will still feel 'they are nice enough'.  But the best thing we can do is be kind and helpful to the people who are being devastated by this stuff.  We can't be 'higher than thou' - we could have been fooled in the right circumstances ourselves.

 

Mmmm...I dunno if they're spewing hate, or just their normal techno-denial strategy, and hyping their paid puppets to offer up their manufactured stories.  This is particularly true because they don't want you listening to science...they want thoughtless drones swallowing their propaganda.  Science consistently refutes them......so of course, scientists are lying.

 

Now, OK, some of this is that the Democrats push heavily for impact reduction in pollution controls, carbon reduction, etc.  And since Democrats are hellspawn, well, anything they want HAS to be bad.  So there's probably some hate in there too....

 

[Starlord]

[tkdguy]

I wasn't sure whether this should go here or the News thread, since there's nothing overtly political (at least in terms of party affiliation) in here. Still, better safe than sorry.

 

Christian Mission Ousted From Sioux Reservation After Distributing Hate Pamphlets

[Pariah]

15 hours ago, Lawnmower Boy said:

I increasingly don't get it: "We are the party that supports minimising this stuff and not doing anything about it as it keeps happening and gets worse and worse." How is this a viable political position going forward?

 

"Well, it's never happened to me, so I guess it's not real."

 

That's pretty much the entire 'argument'.

 

11 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Because it's more convenient, cheaper, and therefore more profitable in the short term, to do nothing.  Because the Repubs don't want ANY oversight whatsoever, so they can profiteer easier.  They'll assert that

a)  we all know weather runs in cycles, so who says this is climate change?

b)  even if it is, who says man's actions are contributory?

 

because there's no smoking-gun proof.  

 

BUT THERE IS, DAMMIT! PAY ATTENTION!

 

Sorry, Vlad, not directed at you. Just venting in general. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. 

 

[Obscene gerund] science deniers can [DELETED] right the [REDACTED] off. 

[Starlord]

[slikmar]

On 7/29/2022 at 4:49 PM, unclevlad said:

Now, OK, some of this is that the Democrats push heavily for impact reduction in pollution controls, carbon reduction, etc.  And since Democrats are hellspawn, well, anything they want HAS to be bad.  So there's probably some hate in there too.

10-15 years ago I heard a couple radio guys comment that our 2 party system is so opposed to each other that one could come up with the cure for cancer and the other would would stop it from being used just because... I thought they might be exaggerating, they apparently were not.

[unclevlad]

Oh, the Republicans would let it be used...but do things like maximize the difficulty in getting FDA approval (so you have to travel to Europe to get it), ensure as much patent protection as possible, and attempt to maintain it as, at most, marginally covered by insurance.

 

So the price remains in the stratosphere as long as possible.  Altho, odds are, any seriously efficacious cure, with relatively low side effects, is gonna cost an arm and a leg regardless.

Now...ok, I have to qualify that.  As Pariah posted a couple days ago on the trafficking bill...there's some Republicans who'll vote against anything the Dems support.  Ohhh...there's a unanimous one...renaming a post office.  421-0, with 12 not voting.  So it can happen!!!

clerk.house.gov has every roll call vote...if you want to look through it.  There's over 400 so far this year. 

Ohhh...if the cancer cure would cause a pregnant woman to miscarry...which is actually, I suspect, quite likely, and someone getting treatments like this *darn sure* shouldn't be pregnant.....now that would generate a NICE little fight..... /sarcOff....

[Cygnia]

Names Of Election Worker Witnesses Found On Oath Keeper Suspect's 'Death List': Court Filing

[Old Man]

6 minutes ago, Cygnia said:

Names Of Election Worker Witnesses Found On Oath Keeper Suspect's 'Death List': Court Filing

 

Yeah, November's going to be real interesting all right.

[assault]

On 7/30/2022 at 9:49 AM, unclevlad said:

b)  even if it is, who says man's actions are contributory?

 

We get an extra argument in Australia: even if we reduce our emissions, it won't make any difference, because there are much bigger polluters, so we needn't bother trying.

This also works by excluding the emissions caused by the coal and gas Australia exports. Australia is a major producer of both of those commodities, but if they are used elsewhere they doesn't count.

[Starlord]

[Pariah]

Okay, so this is terrifying.

 

Republicans' next big play is to 'scare the hell out of Washington' by rewriting the Constitution. And they're willing to play the long game to win.

[Lord Liaden]

As horrible as it is in concept, in a way I find it comforting. Conservatives aren't doing this because they're confident; they're doing this because they're scared. They recognize that in the long term, unless they fundamentally rig the system in their favor, their traditional position of privilege and power is going to fade away. They're talking about this openly because they need to rally support and start taking action, now. If they lose Congress in the midterms, and the Presidency in 2024, they'll have lost their opportunity to steal the United States for the foreseeable future.

[unclevlad]

14 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

As horrible as it is in concept, in a way I find it comforting. Conservatives aren't doing this because they're confident; they're doing this because they're scared. They recognize that in the long term, unless they fundamentally rig the system in their favor, their traditional position of privilege and power is going to fade away. They're talking about this openly because they need to rally support and start taking action, now. If they lose Congress in the midterms, and the Presidency in 2024, they'll have lost their opportunity to steal the United States for the foreseeable future.

 

Whoooaaaa.....

 

Where do you get 'scared' out of this?

 

Nooo...your take here is, I think, 100% wrong.  It's not fear, it's consolidating the power grab to eliminate ANY chance of it being reversed.  

 

Your position fails to recognize that the Republicans have been making steady gains for a couple decades...and have made significant gains at the state level.  Even if they lose Congress...which still is NOT!! expected...and if Biden or Harris wins in 2024, the state-level gains maintain their base.  The structure of the Senate remains in their favor.  Consider this:

 

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Presidents-Coinciding/Party-Government/

 

The Democrats have managed to unify for only 2 sessions...the first sessions of the first terms  of Clinton and Obama.  (IMO, no, they don't have it now, in practice.)  In the 20 Congressional sessions starting with Reagan's Presidency, I count 6 where Congress was split;  6 where the Democrats had both (but 4 of those were with a Republican president), and 7 where the Republicans had both...only 2 with a Democratic President.  The 107th Congress switched hands a lot. But, here's the thing.  What have the Democrats managed to pass, of their classical agenda, even when they've had a unified government?  They've still never gotten a solid gun control bill through, for example.

 

Also, this is different.  Democrats try to change laws.  Republicans try to change the government...to their advantage.  They're talking about this openly because they need to rally across a broad base.  This isn't gonna happen in a year...just like overturning Roe didn't happen in a year.  But it IS working.  Republicans have a Supreme Court that's heavily in their favor now...and for a LONG time to come.  They've got 3 Justices under 60.  More, they've shown they're absolutely willing to play for keeps to get it that way.  Gerrymandering has been a practice of both sides forever...but they've shown they'll take that much further with voting restrictions and challenges.

 

And, OK, they may be scared that the Democrats will overturn their actions should they gain control back...but the problem is, they almost certainly won't, and even if they do...the only way they can is to be just as draconian.  The Republicans do not mind a gutted government...it gives corporations more room to exploit, and civil unrest plays to their arguments.  To borrow one of my all-time favorite TV lines...Babylon 5, not surprisingly:

 

Quote

The key ingredient of the anti-agathic cannot be synthesized. It must be taken from living beings. For one to live forever, another one must die. You will fall on one another like wolves. It will make what we did pale by comparison. The billions who want to live forever will be a testimony to my work, and the billions who are murdered to buy that immortality will be a continuance of my work. Not like us? You will become us. That’s my monument, Commander.

 

Emphasis mine, but it's also there on the screen;  the expressions and intonations are awesome.  And it's the key there.  The Democrats have little chance to beat the Republicans long term...and in the shorter term, any attempts to do so will drive them down to Republicans' level of ethics.  Which is to say, none.