Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[tkdguy]

Not exactly unbiased, but....

 

 

[unclevlad]

Yeah, I dislike Meiselas' tone, and his conclusions/interpretations are shaky...but he's not making up anything about what Trump posted.  Those speak for themselves...and they're pretty darn deranged in my book.  Or sometimes juvenile...slapping those filters on.  Meiselas said he couldn't watch much of em...can't blame him there, neither could I.  

 

[Doc Democracy]

On 3/7/2024 at 5:48 PM, DShomshak said:

The Alabama SC applied the principle of human life starting at conception. They correctly recognized that it was not relevant whether sperm meets egg in a womb or in a lab. To that extent, I laud their rationality. I can only hope that the Alabama legislature's carvingf out an exception for in vitro highlights the irrationality of the core assumption. But I am often disappointed in people's rationality.

 

I think thus highlights the incompatibility in the edge cases of pure philosophy and the practical application of law.

 

I can follow the scientific and philosophical principles of life beginning at conception.  It is clean in both these cases with the edge coming at conception.  Obviously that causes issues with laws that talk about life (usually human life). So homicide is killing a human. If a human embryo is alive, then ending that is homicide. The law has accepted many compromises in the issue of homicide,  war and self-defence the most obvious and there are lots of arguments being made about the right to die.

 

The in-vitro stuff is interesting because it involves the processes by which people are seeking a right to have a baby, to create a life.  The processes are reasonably wasteful with regard to embryos, the ones left in vitro and when there are multiple viable embryos developing in uterus, where some are destroyed to avoid multiple births.  The convenient decision for both the in-vitro industry and prospective parents is that the embryos are not human - there is no incentive to improve processes, to seek practitioners that are less wasteful.

 

Biology is messy, it does not easily conform to sensibilities, to legal definitions and often not even to scientific delineations. It means we make decisions on matters of society and law, looking for scientific back-up which is often not there to sufficiently make the law water-tight.

 

I think we need to get to a place where we stop thinking science can answer our social questions.  That law is there to set lines where the state has decided to set a social decision in a defined way that can be adjudicared in court. People will argue whether that line is in the right place. Science will usually be deployed on both sides, but it is most often a social decision rather than a scientific one.

 

I often tell people (scientists) coming to parliament that when they are describing what happens (or might happen) under certain measurable circumstances then they remain scientists.  When they say what should happen because of that, they become politicians.  Science early tells you what you need to do, it can tell you whether doing something will achieve an end, or likely deliver an outcome, and it might identify the only known way to achieve an outcome. It never Sat's that is what you need to do.

 

Doc

[Lord Liaden]

I've never seen Joe Biden display anything like this.

 

 

[wcw43921]

Kyle Rittenhouse To Speak At University Of Memphis Event

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, wcw43921 said:

Kyle Rittenhouse To Speak At University Of Memphis Event

 

"The University of Memphis said in a statement that due to free speech, they cannot legally prohibit the event."

 

That's garbage and they know it. The First Amendment applies to government censoring or banning speech. It doesn't require any private organization to provide a platform for speech that it doesn't approve of.

[Ranxerox]

4 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

"The University of Memphis said in a statement that due to free speech, they cannot legally prohibit the event."

 

That's garbage and they know it. The First Amendment applies to government censoring or banning speech. It doesn't require any private organization to provide a platform for speech that it doesn't approve of.

 

The University of Memphis is public institution, and as such counts as a government entity. 

[unclevlad]

Rittenhouse's appearance is an example of one of the core problems of the left.  Voltaire:  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  That's near the center of liberal thought...and antithetical to the far right.  Blocking Rittenhouse, and similar points, are anathema to this...at least blocking it in advance.  If he advocates violence in his remarks, well, that would be different.

 

This is by no means the first such incident, or the only type of incident.  

[wcw43921]

What the left should be doing, I think, is to hold some sort of counter-assembly--bring in speakers people want to hear, with items people want to have.  (I'm thinking ice cream.  Who doesn't love ice cream?)

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

Rittenhouse's appearance is an example of one of the core problems of the left.  Voltaire:  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  That's near the center of liberal thought...and antithetical to the far right.  Blocking Rittenhouse, and similar points, are anathema to this...at least blocking it in advance.  If he advocates violence in his remarks, well, that would be different.

 

This is by no means the first such incident, or the only type of incident.  

 

But why is Rittenhouse even offered an appearance like this? He was a dumb punk kid who basically got away with shooting three people because he was a dumb punk kid. Then certain media and politicians built him up because they thought they could use him to advance their own agendas. Since then AFAICT he's done nothing but cash in on his notoriety. He's changed nothing, advocated for no cause, contributed no new thought.

[Lord Liaden]

 

[Iuz the Evil]

4 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

SNL has had a great cold open the last two weeks.

[unclevlad]

How scary is the Texas legal system?

 

VERY.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/us/supreme-court-texas-death-penalty.html?unlocked_article_code=1.b00.KEpk.Hg_D2D83vTev&smid=url-share

[Iuz the Evil]

That’s an interesting article, there have been numerous cases in recent years where district courts tend to push up against (or ignore, or circumvent) Supreme Court rulings, I’m wondering if the politicization of the SCOTUS is contributing to that by reducing their perceived stature and impartiality with the lesser courts.

 

I generally don’t like it when the legal system doesn’t follow its own rules. Being the law and all that…

Edited March 11 by Iuz the Evil

[Lord Liaden]

“Although it is the instinct of every district attorney to defend convictions, our job is to see that justice is done.”

 

It's refreshing to hear a prosecutor express that principle, even in Texas. It's one that should be emphasized throughout the judiciary and law enforcement.

[Old Man]

2 hours ago, Iuz the Evil said:

That’s an interesting article, there have been numerous cases in recent years where district courts tend to push up against (or ignore, or circumvent) Supreme Court rulings, I’m wondering if the politicization of the SCOTUS is contributing to that by reducing their perceived stature and impartiality with the lesser courts.

 

You don't have to wonder; this is absolutely what's happening.  The thing about SCOTUS is that it has no enforcement capability of its own.  Its power derives from its perception as an impartial arbiter of law.   Today's SCOTUS includes of two openly corrupt justices, one more who stole his seat from Garland, and two shockingly unqualified justices who were installed as a reward for helping with Bush v. Gore back in the day.  Now we get rulings where logic and stare decisis are jettisoned in order to come to a predetermined political outcome, such as Dobbs, or Bruen which my state has elected to ignore, or Colorado.  Thus, trust in our institutions is eroded, as intended.

[Lord Liaden]

Of all the harm Donald Trump did to America, that's the worst. Even a dictatorship will be stable if the majority of the people believe what it does to be right and necessary. And the most enlightened government will fall if they don't.

[unclevlad]

From an NYT newsletter that just dropped into my inbox.  The potentially lasting impact of the Roe overturn:

 

Quote

About 12 percent of participants said abortion would be the “most important issue” to their vote in the 2024 election. That includes 28 percent of Black women, 22 percent of Democrats, 19 percent of women in states where abortion is banned and 17 percent of women of reproductive age (18-49). Of the voters who said abortion was the most important issue, two-thirds said it should be legal in all or most circumstances.

 

It remains to be seen how this will play out, of course.  It probably isn't enough to divert the primary process.  Primaries tend to support the more polarized candidates.  It might change the occasional result in competitive races, tho.

[Iuz the Evil]

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

 

You don't have to wonder; this is absolutely what's happening.  The thing about SCOTUS is that it has no enforcement capability of its own.  Its power derives from its perception as an impartial arbiter of law.   Today's SCOTUS includes of two openly corrupt justices, one more who stole his seat from Garland, and two shockingly unqualified justices who were installed as a reward for helping with Bush v. Gore back in the day.  Now we get rulings where logic and stare decisis are jettisoned in order to come to a predetermined political outcome, such as Dobbs, or Bruen which my state has elected to ignore, or Colorado.  Thus, trust in our institutions is eroded, as intended.

Well, the enforcement authority lies with the executive branch and they haven’t been taking action for a variety of reasons. If California or New York decide to ignore Bruen, nothing much is happening under this administration. Might change with a different one. Same with Dobbs, really. There’s a lot the Federal government can theoretically do, but it takes the will to do it and that can cut both ways. So I’m thinking some of it is related to the perceived stature of the Court, and some of it that the Executive branch is polarized by whoever happens to be in the chair at the time and as a result takes no action supporting the Court’s rulings. (Not sure what they could do about Colorado). If you get an executive branch that supports these rulings, that might look pretty different, as it has in the past.
 

Now we have a Constitutional Sheriffs movement that’s taking off, 14 Counties in very progressive California (of 58) have very publicly told the State that they’ll not be enforcing laws they deem unconstitutional. And while California can legally tell them they are not allowed to do that, good luck enforcing that position. How will you prove lack of enforcement? What do you legally have the ability to do regarding an elected official who has local support for the position they are taking? Sheriffs have a lot of power practically, and there are few systems to curtail that outside the vote (which will continue to go in their favor if they are endorsing a locally popular position). Is harder that it sounds and the potential for very serious breakdown of our systems is quite real. 
 

i don’t like anything about this stuff, we have processes for this. “Just do what you know is right” is a path to anarchy in my opinion. It’ll be interesting, and potentially very unpleasant, to watch this play out. 

[Lord Liaden]

5 hours ago, unclevlad said:

From an NYT newsletter that just dropped into my inbox.  The potentially lasting impact of the Roe overturn:

 

 

It remains to be seen how this will play out, of course.  It probably isn't enough to divert the primary process.  Primaries tend to support the more polarized candidates.  It might change the occasional result in competitive races, tho.

 

Donald Trump is all but guaranteed to win the Republican primary, barring legal or medical issues derailing him. But it should be noted that Trump's margins of victory in the primaries have consistently lagged well behind Joe Biden's. Primary voters are the most motivated and committed, and in a real sense the leaders are both incumbents. But even among motivated Republicans their enthusiasm for Trump is rather lukewarm.

 

As for the abortion issue, 12% of the vote would be decisive in many competitive districts. The Democrats would not have to flip that many seats to regain control of the House.

[unclevlad]

But how many really competitive distracts are there?  

 

To be sure, if they can pick up 5, that would flip the House as it stands now, and that's not a high bar, so it is plausible.  

 

The scary aspect is...we just don't know.  We're all looking through this through lenses of our biases...and the voters have whamboozled us quite a bit over the last few election cycles.  Is there a more nightmarish scenario than a complete MAGA sweep?  But the partial wins are just as ugly.  1 of the 3 only...Trump in the WH with Dem House/Senate?  It's Trump, and his executive authority to withdraw from NATO, to shift money back to the border wall, to quash the prosecutions.  Congress would be a check but not a severe one.  Biden in WH, but Reps get 1 chamber?  Similar dysfunction as now...possibly worse.  Biden in WH, but Reps get both chambers?  Governmental civil war.  Near-certain shutdowns, as Biden will *have* to veto so many bills.

 

So I do take a measure of hope from the story, yeah, but................

[Lord Liaden]

IME a glass half full seems to leave us less thirsty than one half empty.

 

But as I've said many times, worrying about what we can't change is a waste. I'm presuming Americans here pretty much all intend to vote, and I see evidence that many of us are trying to keep each other informed and spread the truth and facts around. Beyond that, there's nothing to be done until the election. There's definitely reason to hope, but no amount of worry will shift the odds or skew the demographics.

 

Until then,

Spoiler

 

 

Edited March 12 by Lord Liaden

[Cygnia]

 

[Cygnia]

https://thinkbigpicture.substack.com/p/big-questions-matthew-sheffield-trump

 

Quote

It was not surprising for me to see you reference the Bible in your essay, since Christian nationalism, which is itself an authoritarian movement, is a core part of the MAGA base. But there are of course many religious people who are not under the sway of Donald Trump. What is it about the strain of Christianity we’re seeing rise on the right that makes them particularly susceptible to someone like Trump?

Yes, there are a lot of people who are Christians who are not in the Trump cult. The reason they are not under his sway is that they have more mature theological viewpoints. The Bible is not a science book any more than Homer’s Odyssey is, even though both works are filled with all kinds of insights into the human condition. Mature Christians, Muslims, Jews, and members of other traditions have realized that religion is only a part of human knowledge.

Inside the world’s colleges and universities, people who believe superstitious things like “young earth creationism” (the notion that the earth is only 6,000 years old) lost the argument more than a century ago. You will get laughed out of any academic conference if you want to present a paper arguing that the flood of Noah was real or that humans are not genetically related to great apes. Unfortunately, among average Americans, belief in ancient legends about human origins has been incredibly durable. Even more incredibly, for many decades, people with anti-science viewpoints actually thought that their views were factual. If you want a hilarious and horrifying way of seeing what I’m talking about, I recommend watching Ben Stein’s awful 2008 movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.”

Once the internet became completely pervasive within society, low-information religious fundamentalists finally became aware that their side had totally and completely lost all scientific and historical arguments. This has been extremely traumatizing psychologically because all of the authorities they have been conditioned to believe (pastors, the Bible, political leaders) proclaimed themselves to be infallible. Instead, they were completely defenseless against anthropologists, biologists, and historians.

But rather than admit they were wrong and adapt to modernity, religious fundamentalists have decided to attack it and to force the majority who disbelieve their ideas to genuflect before them. Having failed to convince people of their beliefs, they have decided to mandate them. In so doing, they are embracing their core epistemology, that knowledge comes from authority rather than from the scientific method. The Bible says it’s true, so therefore it is. I feel a warm fuzzy feeling when I watch my favorite pastor, so therefore what he says is true.

These viewpoints are dangerous and the only way to deal with them is to politically disempower them. They will never compromise because they believe they are enacting God’s will. A lot of people thought that abortion rights were a settled controversy after Roe v. Wade but the far right never accepted it. These same activists are hard at work to criminalize homosexuality, to take away all women’s rights, and to prohibit atheism or non-Christian religion. They literally do want Christo-fascism.

…

At the end of your essay, you make clear that to break MAGA fans out of their stupor, you can’t go after their belief in Trump, but rather “attack the ideas and emotions that make Trump worship appealing.” Can you give us examples of how to go about doing that?

Attacking Trump himself is too much for his most devoted supporters to handle. He occupies a prophet-like status in their minds. And that’s not me exaggerating. Recently, a far-right TV channel interviewed a Trump supporter at one of his rallies who spoke for millions of his most delusional fans. “He’s a godly man, he’s working for God, for darn sure,” she said. “He is actually working for God, and he wants to help us.”

Trying to help people with views like this confront the reality that Donald Trump is a serial grifter who has stolen millions of dollars from his fans and was found liable for sexual abuse is too much for them to handle. It would destroy their psyche to have to admit that they were totally wrong about the person who is their great leader.

It’s easier to focus on small-time grifters like Rep. Lauren Boebert, who engaged in obviously inappropriate behavior in a public theater, or people like Steve Bannon, who was convicted of stealing money from supporters. Getting Trumpers to see how other people in their movement are stupid con artists is a lot easier than getting them to realize the truth about him. You have to work your way up for someone who is caught in a cult.

People’s religious views can also be turned around to help free them from MAGA. For instance, a Catholic reactionary might be more susceptible to exposés about Evangelical grifters, whereas Evangelicals might be more able to view Christian nationalism skeptically when they realize that many of its ideas originate within Mormon theology.

Humor is also deadly to authoritarians because it takes them off the pedestal of greatness. Almost always, evil is also idiotic. Pointing that out is essential, it’s why in addition to writing political columns, I also have a silly news panel show with my comedian friend Lisa Curry called Doomscroll.

 

[Cygnia]

In other news, transphobe JK Rowling finds a new hole to dig in to...

Quote

According to Joanne Rowling, the Nazis didn’t burn the ISS archives, nor did they specifically target trans people. She even re-posted a thread filled with blatant misinformation about Hirschfeld (to call its contents “offensive” would be an understatement), much of which is often parroted by conservatives in their attacks on trans rights.