Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[TrickstaPriest]

2 hours ago, Pariah said:

 

Because of course she did: "Congratulations to Giorgio Meloni and to the people of Italy," [Marjorie Taylor] Greene wrote on Twitter, misspelling the right-wing leader's first name.

 

And the reason they're celebrating is because their team won. Or maybe because the other team lost. Remember that bit in The Rise of Skywalker when General Hux says "I don't care if you win. I just need Kylo Ren to lose"? The GQP is a lot like that these days. As long as someone is beating The Woke Left™, they don't care how awful that someone may be. In fact, they'll embrace that someone as a comrade in arms and a blood brother and then viciously scream "INTOLERANCE!" at anyone who dares point out that they're openly allying themselves with actual Fascists.

 

Literally the 'pebble in your shoe'.  I run into this so much that it's distressing - the 'reaching out to disaffected young men' to create an abusive anti-woman political community is brutally effective on them.   It's the one thing they have in common with extreme religious groups.  It's how they seized 'the gamer' vote, building that bridge.  And it's why the GOP was so tolerant of Trump's misogyny.  It's literally their political rally point.

[Pariah]

Opinion | Edward Snowden becomes a Russian. Cosmic justice is served.

[wcw43921]

Apparently, being served with divorce papers hasn't slowed Greene down at all.

[csyphrett]

3 minutes ago, wcw43921 said:

Apparently being served with divorce papers hasn't slowed Greene down at all.

Why would it? It's a lack of self awareness that is leading to her divorce in the first place

CES

[DShomshak]

2 hours ago, wcw43921 said:

Apparently, being served with divorce papers hasn't slowed Greene down at all.

Since the article is about Greene's incendiary claims that Democrats are murdering Republicans, and doesn't mention her divorce (first I heard about that), this might not be the clearest "headline" for the story.

 

I wish I could say I was shocked that a politician would hector people that their lives, personally, are in danger from the other party, but I'm not. Another clear case of incitement by projection.

 

Dean Shomshak

[unclevlad]

Yeah, the divorce point's more or less a side show.  It might have play if Greene was viewed as pro-family, but I don't think that's the case.

 

Her ridiculous assertions here are dangerous, IMO.  There might not be that much violence with a partisan basis, but I do believe there's been some...and if nothing else, it radicalizes.

 

Gah...and we don't even have Trump as a declared candidate, and it's a horrible political year.  What does that say about 2024?

[Pariah]

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

Gah...and we don't even have Trump as a declared candidate, and it's a horrible political year.  What does that say about 2024?

 

It says that we need to circle the wagons and use all legal and reasonable efforts to make sure that neither the former president nor any of his sycophants gets anywhere near public office in 2024. And if that means holding our nose while we vote for some candidates, then so be it, because the perfect is the enemy of the good.

 

That's what it says.

[Iuz the Evil]

I think it says “be a good enough candidate to earn my vote“ given the alternatives but that’s just me. 

[Old Man]

Teen girl in Arizona denied lifesaving medication two days after anti-abortion law goes into effect

 

To be clear, the girl in question is not even remotely pregnant.

[csyphrett]

31 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Teen girl in Arizona denied lifesaving medication two days after anti-abortion law goes into effect

 

To be clear, the girl in question is not even remotely pregnant.

Republicans dont care about people who are already out in the world.

CES

[unclevlad]

I'd phrase it that they don't give a **** about legitimate uses that also get impacted by their crusade.  It doesn't matter;  in their tunnel vision, only the fact that it can be used to induce an abortion matters.  

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

I'd phrase it that they don't give a **** about legitimate uses that also get impacted by their crusade.  It doesn't matter;  in their tunnel vision, only the fact that it can be used to induce an abortion matters.  

 

We will sacrifice as many lives as we can in support of our crusade to save lives!  /s

[unclevlad]

23 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

We will sacrifice as many lives as we can in support of our crusade to save lives!  /s

 

Even simpler.

 

The end justifies the means.

[Pariah]

Even simpler: We only care about saving the right kind of lives. Sure, our hallowed Constitution says that all people are created equal ... but some are more equal than others.

[DShomshak]

Getting away from the daily outrages, the "Lexington" column in the Sep. 24, 2022 issue of the Economist is titled, "In praise of the deep state." The specific topic is the dinner honoring winners of the "Service to America" medals, or Sammies: bureaucrats who make the bureaucracy work better, from restoring service at the Veteran's Administration to getting the JWST finally launched. A cohort of people in generally obscure jobs, working for a lot less than they could make in the private sector, because they believe they can use government to help people attain decent lives, and by cracky they're doing it.

 

So my personal thanks to all the employees at every level of government who work to keep American society something better than Hobbesian anarchy. Geez, Marvel mutants thing thy have it bad? At least they get super-powers to compensate for "a world that hates and fears them."

 

Dean Shomshak

[Hugh Neilson]

Any ideology, taken to an extreme, is problematic.  Germany asked Canada to build infrastructure and increase exports of petroleum products (mainly liquid natural gas), but the Canadian government is up on renewable energy, down on hydrocarbons and told Germany there's "no business case".

 

Last week, a deal with Mexico was announced.  So the economic benefits will go to Mexico, which I believe has lower environmental standards.  Canada's ideological stance resulted in loss of economic benefits AND more pollution/GHG emissions, as Germany/Europe still needs energy from somewhere.  Not seeing the win for clean energy here.

[Cancer]

Funding for US research on various causes of death

 

(Link to an article in Nature.)  Guns became the leading cause of death for children in 2020.  Average funding for research into gun homicides: $63 per death.

 

Of course, I'm not sure any of the other causes of death have political entities actively advocating expansion for the cause of death the way guns does.

[Iuz the Evil]

27 minutes ago, Cancer said:

Funding for US research on various causes of death

 

(Link to an article in Nature.)  Guns became the leading cause of death for children in 2020.  Average funding for research into gun homicides: $63 per death.

 

Of course, I'm not sure any of the other causes of death have political entities actively advocating expansion for the cause of death the way guns does.

I wholeheartedly concur that restrictions on research for political purposes (as demonstrated with regard to firearms) is unacceptable. Research should not be limited because we don’t like the implications.

 

The massive spike in suicide is worth research separate and apart from gun violence. We’ve seen our hotline calls more than double in the past two years, with much younger demographics (although still predominantly male). I would like to see greater focus on causal factors and potential interventions. I realize that’s complicated and likely political in nature, but without good research it’s very hard to craft interventions (which is literally my job). I know a lot of the historical reasons, they have been stable for 30+ years. Recent increases are likely attributed to social isolation, and other negative impacts of the necessary pandemic response, but interventions have lagged well behind the skyrocketing rates… with mobile response implementations delayed in California until at least 2025. While I understand the reticence to delve into the potentially negative impacts of our other health interventions, the opportunity through the nation wide “988” number shouldn’t be missed. 
 

Anyway, more research and support for social policy based on data is typically a good thing and I would hope for more of it (rather than additional restrictions).

 

 Edit: In case anyone’s interested in a reputable data source. https://suicidology.org

[Pattern Ghost]

42 minutes ago, Cancer said:

leading cause of death for children in 2020

 

Children includes 18 and 19 year old adults.

 

There's lies, damned lies, and statistics at play here.

 

The group most effected by firearms deaths are gang members. And yes, most of them are tragically young. But that doesn't merit lumping them in with children for the sake of a political agenda and masks the real area that should be focused on. The research should be on how to reduce gang violence. Programs like the one shown in the video posted up thread are effective, so spend that research money there.

[Lord Liaden]

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Any ideology, taken to an extreme, is problematic.  Germany asked Canada to build infrastructure and increase exports of petroleum products (mainly liquid natural gas), but the Canadian government is up on renewable energy, down on hydrocarbons and told Germany there's "no business case".

 

Last week, a deal with Mexico was announced.  So the economic benefits will go to Mexico, which I believe has lower environmental standards.  Canada's ideological stance resulted in loss of economic benefits AND more pollution/GHG emissions, as Germany/Europe still needs energy from somewhere.  Not seeing the win for clean energy here.

 

Two points. One, "If we don't do it the other guy will" is part of the mindset that got us into the mess we're in now. For decades, governments have been waiting for the other guy to make the first move on pollution, on climate change. Now, it's very nearly too late. Everyone has to do whatever they can to ameliorate the situation as much as possible. Canada can't do anything about what Mexico chooses to do, it can only choose for itself.

 

Two, the world is moving toward renewable energy in a big way. Public sentiment has shifted away from dependence on fossil fuels. Recent events have only highlighted the outsized economic influence that countries with large reserves of those fuels wield. Major energy companies are investing heavily in developing renewables because they see that's where the long-term profits will be. Among governments, China's is one of the biggest per-capita investors in renewable energy.

 

Countries that focus on renewables now will reap the rewards not far down the road, and for the foreseeable future. Those that continue to focus on fossil fuels will be left behind.

[Old Man]

17 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

The group most effected by firearms deaths are gang members. And yes, most of them are tragically young. But that doesn't merit lumping them in with children

 

I don't see why not.

[Pattern Ghost]

9 minutes ago, Old Man said:

I don't see why not.

 

When I see an appeal for money coupled with disinformation, I become suspicious of how that money is spent. The "why not" is that the money can be spent on things we already know are effective, and actually reduce gun deaths among older children and young adults.

 

Edit: I'm not saying not to spend money on this. We need to make a massive spend toward unified and consistent reporting, for example. That data can then be studied. I'm just saying the appeal is done in a disingenuous manner.

[BNakagawa]

On 10/1/2022 at 8:53 AM, Pariah said:

Opinion | Edward Snowden becomes a Russian. Cosmic justice is served.

I wonder if he'll be conscripted and sent to fight in Ukraine.

[Sociotard]

 

[Lectryk]

On 10/3/2022 at 3:13 PM, Old Man said:

 

I don't see why not.

 

Statistics are useless without peer/like groupings controlled by rigorous protocols.

 

There are legal, and medical definitions here.  18 years of age is the legal age of majority, they are adults.  The American Association of Pediatrics sets it at 21 (https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/140/3/e20172151/38333/Age-Limit-of-Pediatrics?autologincheck=redirected?nfToken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000).  Which value should we use?  Should we disenfrancise anyone under the age of 21 based on that?    Are military deaths/injuries to 18 years by guns included in that study?  If not, why not?  That's violence.  What is the definition of violent crime, even?  There have been several situations with various police agencies under reporting certain crimes, by classification (even the FBI).