One point there - DC already has representation in presidential elections. Changing the balance of those, even by a tiny amount, isn't in the cards. Changing the balance of the Senate when it's particularly close - that is at stake.
The statehood argument is about (a) letting them have representation in the House and Senate, and (b) stopping the federal government from interfering in their local government any more than they do to other states.
One point there - DC already has representation in presidential elections. Changing the balance of those, even by a tiny amount, isn't in the cards. Changing the balance of the Senate when it's particularly close - that is at stake.
The statehood argument is about (a) letting them have representation in the House and Senate, and (b) stopping the federal government from interfering in their local government any more than they do to other states.
Yes, you're correct. It completely slipped my mind.
Just to clarify, DC does have its 3 EC's. Probably shouldnt have included the EC in my point above, as it might create confusion on that point. I do think two DC Senators would be decisive in the short-term. But a GOP that was more in tune with voters overall would certainly one day nullify that change. And that's kind of the point.
Just to clarify, DC does have its 3 EC's. Probably shouldnt have included the EC in my point above, as it might create confusion on that point. I do think two DC Senators would be decisive in the short-term. But a GOP that was more in tune with voters overall would certainly one day nullify that change. And that's kind of the point.
Yeah, I'm at work and I just forgot about it while typing the post.
One point there - DC already has representation in presidential elections. Changing the balance of those, even by a tiny amount, isn't in the cards. Changing the balance of the Senate when it's particularly close - that is at stake.
The statehood argument is about (a) letting them have representation in the House and Senate, and (b) stopping the federal government from interfering in their local government any more than they do to other states.
I do suspect DC statehood would likely carve out an extra generous concession to federal interference. It'd almost certainly have to. But yeah, the feds wouldn't have veto power over everything as they do now. Another compelling reason for statehood that we haven't really talked about on here.
One of my reoccurring favorite arguments for why multi-party parliamentary systems are not better (or worse) than 2 party, first past the post democratic systems (like the USA):
Israel held elections today. The 4th national election in 2 years. Once again, it looks like no one is overly likely to form a government. They'll probably need to have another election.
One of my reoccurring favorite arguments for why multi-party parliamentary systems are not better (or worse) than 2 party, first past the post democratic systems (like the USA):
Israel held elections today. The 4th national election in 2 years. Once again, it looks like no one is overly likely to form a government. They'll probably need to have another election.
Ya, definitely alot of grass is greener on the other side driving folks in the US to think it's better. But, in the best of times, multiparty systems still coalesce into coalitions, effectively not much different from the US two party system. And at the worst of times, you get what you just described.
Jesus, the press has been clamoring for a Biden press conference for months, and THAT is how they use their time?? Once again, they are hopelessly addicted to Trump's drama and now have no one feeding them. Since Biden has significantly exceeded all expectations on the vaccine rollout, they just want to pretend any other story is a 1/10th as important, when there is no actual reality where that is the case. Not a single question about the topic. But definitely one about if he's going to run for reelection 3 1/2 years from now. They believe it for different reasons, but trust me, most on the left see the media as being just as broken as the right does. Just non-stop narrative framing and horserace bullshit. If Biden didn't come off looking better after this (which I think he does), I'd legitimately advocate for not even having them.
The fact is, ratings are down without Trump, and alot of these reporters are more concerned with adding Twitter followers and building a brand that gets them booked on Sunday shows than asking any substantial questions. It's been quite clear since he lost his Twitter account just how much of a symbiotic relationship the former President and the media had. The cable networks and DC press corps have more to answer for in his rise and time in office than anyone.
And as a side note, if the right-wing media wants to keep going all in on the "Biden is senile" narrative and keep stepping on the same rake, have at it. What strategic advantage is there is constantly lowering expectations for your opponent that can be exceeded simply by acting normally??
Brian Kemp just signed a sweeping voter suppression law in Georgia, which, among other things, makes it ILLEGAL to offer water to people standing in line for hours. But that is only the most headline grabbing. It also allows UNLIMITED challenges to voter eligibility, and elimination of most drop boxes. The Republican Party despises the fact that we live in a democracy, and they are trying to end it. There isn't anything else to say about this subject anymore. They aren't interested in having an electoral contest against their opponents, simply rigging the game so they can't lose. I absolutely loathe these people.
Pass the voting rights legislation the House just approved one way or another, or every red state is basically going to attempt to go back to Jim Crow-like voting restrictions. They won't stop. We're about one cycle out from selectively administered literacy tests and land ownership requirements, or forcing someone to guess how many marbles are in a jar to get a ballot. They just made it a crime to offer someone standing line for 4 or 5 hours fluids. What lengths do you imagine they won't resort to??
Honestly, aside from any practical application, the water and food provision seems to me to have been included just to signal to everyone "yeah, we’re monstrous assholes, and we like being that way, try to stop us." I also saw a quote in a YouTube comment section about another topic (Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination). Which was that Lawful Good can't defeat Chaotic Evil, only Chaotic Good can. The Republican Party is screaming from the rooftops, from the Capitol insurrection to these laws, that they want to end American democracy. Tepid condemnations and pointing to the rule book won't stop them. Only action will.
Jesus, the press has been clamoring for a Biden press conference for months, and THAT is how they use their time??
Got a chance to glimpse some of it, and yeah, it was a huge wasted opportunity to make news on some serious issues. It's worth noting that the White House correspondents are only a small fraction of the news industry, so they're not representative. Nonetheless, the big problem seems to be that these reporters think they need to be like an ESPN-style commentary around election strategies. The Monday morning quarterback logic behind some of the questions was too much.
I'd like to make another point. If you get into an argument about the Georgia bill, either online or in person, someone is going to claim to you that it's simply to prevent votes from being bought by way of a bottle of Evian and a slice of Little Caesar's pizza. What I'd like everyone to understand when they hear someone make that argument is that the person saying that to you is lying to you. They don't really believe that. No one does. But they'll tell you they do to serve their argument in the moment. They just can't find another way to defend making compassion illegal without looking like amoral monsters.
I'd like to make another point. If you get into an argument about the Georgia bill, either online or in person, someone is going to claim to you that it's simply to prevent votes from being bought by way of a bottle of Evian and a slice of Little Caesar's pizza. What I'd like everyone to understand when they hear someone make that argument is that the person saying that to you is lying to you. They don't really believe that. No one does. But they'll tell you they do to serve their argument in the moment. They just can't find another way to defend making compassion illegal without looking like amoral monsters.
II find it weird that I am agreeing with you so much right now. Personal opinion, you are making more sense or like Mercury is in retrograde or something.
I'd like to make another point. If you get into an argument about the Georgia bill, either online or in person, someone is going to claim to you that it's simply to prevent votes from being bought by way of a bottle of Evian and a slice of Little Caesar's pizza. What I'd like everyone to understand when they hear someone make that argument is that the person saying that to you is lying to you. They don't really believe that. No one does. But they'll tell you they do to serve their argument in the moment. They just can't find another way to defend making compassion illegal without looking like amoral monsters.
II find it weird that I am agreeing with you so much right now. Personal opinion, you are making more sense or like Mercury is in retrograde or something.
The only reason one could even offer for making this illegal is to suggest that people can be bought off in the absolute cheapest way possible. As if your average person (or ANY person really) would sell their vote for what amounts to (at most) $1.50 worth of food and water. It would also have to assume that the person providing the water and food was a.) asking everyone in line who they were voting for and b.) were refusing to give a bottle and a slice to everyone who said they were voting for a Republican. Which would never take place, and hasn't taken place.
The lines in Georgia (in a normal, non-pandemic year) are longer in urban areas. Which are filled with alot of African-American voters. Who tend to vote for Democrats (90%+). It's not a stretch to say any Georgia election in the near future could easily be decided by a few hundred votes. Waits of hours upon hours are not uncommon. Average temperature in Georgia in November can still be in the mid-70s. They just reduced the number of places you can drop off your vote, and the reasons you can request an absentee ballot, ensuring the lines will be MUCH longer going forward. And they just codified into law that free people in a supposedly free country can't give water or food to their fellow citizens who can't leave their spot in line to get their own. Anyone denying what is going on here is being wholly disingenuous, and that is the absolute NICEST thing I can say about them. In an unfiltered, non-regulated forum, I'd say much, much more. I hope thousands of people break this law in unison in 2022. They can't arrest them all.
“Lighten up Francis.” Is okay, I am agreeing with you!
It was just an opportunity to make my thoughts more clear without double-posting again. When you can see what the argument for it will be coming from a mile away, and it's nothing but pedantic bullshit that's only purpose is to provide plausible deniability to the real intention of the law, it really reveals how cynical and depraved the people pushing it through are. And it makes my blood boil. I haven't figured out what the strategy is to counter these kind of tactics without compromising your own values and morals. I don't know if there is one.
China is going to be occupying a lot of international attention over the next few years as Western countries seek to get more comfortable with its economic dominance in some areas and more assertive attitude to diplomacy. I think that background is a significant part of the reason why criticism of Chinese actions in Xinjiang has been increasing for a while now.
The latest indication of that was the sanctions imposed on Chinese officials connected with Xinjiang a few days ago in a joint effort by the EU, UK, US and Canada. That's the first time since Tiananmen Square in 1989 that the UK has put sanctions on China - and the first time it's ever done that to Chinese individuals.
It's not surprising that China has quickly responded by imposing sanctions of its own. If relations continue to deteriorate there may be a more general economic effect - both directly due to sanctions and indirectly as Western countries seek to reduce their dependence on China as a source for certain types of goods. I'm not convinced that will have an impact on Chinese decision-making, but coordinated international action certainly has much more of a chance of doing that than countries acting individually would.
Don’t take this offensively but I see you as a crusader, Balian from Kingdom of Heaven kind of crusader, know what I mean. Don’t believe that is a bad thing, personally I think it is an amazing thing. We need that. Just that sometimes I feel that crusaders push and then there is a Saladin pushing back. Err... grr... I am not explaining this well.
Um, sometimes people push because someone is pushing back. They have no feelings about about a subject but if someone pushes it on them, well they will revolt. Not the subject matter.
Kay, umm... there are times when you just let it happen. Not let it go, but let it happen.
We are not pushing back. Gifted with an average, and in some cases above average intelligence, we get it. Even Zeke. Sorry Zeke but you fight against reality more than most.
We won, right? Look for what you want, not for what you are afraid of. It is all broken but there is hope now right?
Dominion is suing Fox News for 1.6 Billion dollars.
It's honestly frightening that our political system is so utterly broken at the moment that the only way to hold massive media corporations and people accountable for attempting to undermine and damage the functioning of our democracy is thought court cases seeking monetary damages such as the above.
It's ludicrous that this is where we are. We need enormous governmental reform because next time - the GOP will undermine the faith in American democracy without presenting themselves as a target for being sued, and may actually win.
Dominion is suing Fox News for 1.6 Billion dollars.
It's honestly frightening that our political system is so utterly broken at the moment that the only way to hold massive media corporations and people accountable for attempting to undermine and damage the functioning of our democracy is thought court cases seeking monetary damages such as the above.
It's ludicrous that this is where we are. We need enormous governmental reform because next time - the GOP will undermine the faith in American democracy without presenting themselves as a target for being sued, and may actually win.
In the last 24 hours, I've seen the Georgia voting bill signed, Ben Shapiro's #2 at the Daily Wire say it doesn't go far enough and essentially call for literacy tests, and a guest on Tucker Carlson say that yes, in the next 10 years, the GOP will probably nominate a fascist and (surprise, surprise) insinuate that when it happens, it will be because the liberals MADE them do it, while Carlson nods along in agreement. Anyone who doesn't see where this is heading isn't paying attention to what they are admitting out loud.
The system, in general, sucks. We know this. But the problem, the absolute heart of the crisis of American democracy is that one of the two parties doesn't believe in it anymore. They are just biding their time until they can slowly eliminate it piece by piece. How much more evidence do we need?? This is not a belief that is reserved for pundits or right-wing shock jocks. This is all becoming mainstream belief among nearly half of Republican voters. Elections don't count if we lose, and laws should be implemented so we can't lose, no matter who loses their most basic fundamental rights because of it, and we aren't responsible for ANY of our own opinions, because those damn liberals just keep forcing me to do this.
As a side note, FOX only responds when the lawsuits start piling up. Bill O'Reilly and Roger Ailes stayed in power LONG after it was known they were habitual sexual predators, until the avalanche of lawsuits made it impossible to justify keeping them to the Murdochs financially. Since they are one of the wealthiest families in the world, you have to threaten to hit their pockets in a deep way. They canned Lou Dobbs already to avoid on lawsuit on this subject, which they never would have done otherwise.
What people don't realize is that much of right-wing media is subsidized at a loss by massively wealthy donors and business owners. Those books everyone writes?? They are bought up by think tanks to push them onto the NYT bestseller list. If any normal people do buy them, they function more as totems to sit on shelf than reading material. Limbaugh didn't make money in many markets because of the small list of companies who would advertise with him. Check out the commercials some night on FOX News during prime time. It is all late-night informercial-level stuff. Shady computer security subscriptions, gold sellers, etc etc. No serious companies are willing to purchase spots. But they are willing to lose that money to inject the propaganda into the nation's blood stream. They get paid back ten-fold in the end.
So, here is a another bill carving out religious exemptions in the medical field related to treating LGBTQ patients. Yeah, yeah, I know it ostensibly carves out an exception for "emergency treatment" but that to me seems completely amorphous and open to interpretation. The big question for me is, why the fuck are you a doctor if this is something you would avail yourself of?? Doctors and nurses are QUITE often called upon to treat the absolute scum of the Earth. Murderers, rapists, pedophiles etc etc. Medical staff do not DENY heinous criminals treatment based on their personal morals or the crimes they have committed. But we should allow it for bigoted religious reasons simply because of someone's gender identity?? Seems inevitable to me somewhere down the line someone from a marginalized group will DIE because of this, and the Dr. will have this to fall back on:
The most disgusting thing about this country (or maybe humanity in general) is how people who CLEARLY have the least power in society are quickly framed as people asking for "special rights" (which are just the rights most people have by default) and that anyone who is required to afford them these basic rights (professionally and legally) are the REAL victims. After all, it's not the person who is denied a prescription from a fundamentalist pharmacist who should be complaining. It's the person who believes his "religious liberty" is so paramount that he shouldn't even be required to carry out the obligations of his own job.
Shit, why not just have a construction worker say his religion is explicitly against pouring concrete so he can stay home the week his company is working on a new parking lot?? It would be no less ridiculous than this. But that would NEVER be allowed or entertained. So why are these?? This exemplifies more than anything how the idea that "Christianity" is under attack and that "Christians" are the ones who are the REAL targets of discrimination is the biggest load of hogwash in history. There are certain professions where you literally don't even have to do your job if you claim it as a personal belief and suffer no consequences.
So, here is a another bill carving out religious exemptions in the medical field related to treating LGBTQ patients. Yeah, yeah, I know it ostensibly carves out an exception for "emergency treatment" but that to me seems completely amorphous and open to interpretation. The big question for me is, why the fuck are you a doctor if this is something you would avail yourself of?? Doctors and nurses are QUITE often called upon to treat the absolute scum of the Earth. Murderers, rapists, pedophiles etc etc. Medical staff do not DENY heinous criminals treatment based on their personal morals or the crimes they have committed. But we should allow it for bigoted religious reasons simply because of someone's gender identity?? Seems inevitable to me somewhere down the line someone from a marginalized group will DIE because of this, and the Dr. will have this to fall back on:
The most disgusting thing about this country (or maybe humanity in general) is how people who CLEARLY have the least power in society are quickly framed as people asking for "special rights" (which are just the rights most people have by default) and that anyone who is required to afford them these basic rights (professionally and legally) are the REAL victims. After all, it's not the person who is denied a prescription from a fundamentalist pharmacist who should be complaining. It's the person who believes his "religious liberty" is so paramount that he shouldn't even be required to carry out the obligations of his own job.
Shit, why not just have a construction worker say his religion is explicitly against pouring concrete so he can stay home the week his company is working on a new parking lot?? It would be no less ridiculous than this. But that would NEVER be allowed or entertained. So why are these?? This exemplifies more than anything how the idea that "Christianity" is under attack and that "Christians" are the ones who are the REAL targets of discrimination is the biggest load of hogwash in history. There are certain professions where you literally don't even have to do your job if you claim it as a personal belief and suffer no consequences.
I'm in the same boat as @Michelle. I find I have little to argue with you about the GOP anymore. I might still disagree with you on fiscal policy or political philosophy in general, but the religious right is totally off the rails at the moment...
So, here is a another bill carving out religious exemptions in the medical field related to treating LGBTQ patients. Yeah, yeah, I know it ostensibly carves out an exception for "emergency treatment" but that to me seems completely amorphous and open to interpretation. The big question for me is, why the fuck are you a doctor if this is something you would avail yourself of?? Doctors and nurses are QUITE often called upon to treat the absolute scum of the Earth. Murderers, rapists, pedophiles etc etc. Medical staff do not DENY heinous criminals treatment based on their personal morals or the crimes they have committed. But we should allow it for bigoted religious reasons simply because of someone's gender identity?? Seems inevitable to me somewhere down the line someone from a marginalized group will DIE because of this, and the Dr. will have this to fall back on:
The most disgusting thing about this country (or maybe humanity in general) is how people who CLEARLY have the least power in society are quickly framed as people asking for "special rights" (which are just the rights most people have by default) and that anyone who is required to afford them these basic rights (professionally and legally) are the REAL victims. After all, it's not the person who is denied a prescription from a fundamentalist pharmacist who should be complaining. It's the person who believes his "religious liberty" is so paramount that he shouldn't even be required to carry out the obligations of his own job.
Shit, why not just have a construction worker say his religion is explicitly against pouring concrete so he can stay home the week his company is working on a new parking lot?? It would be no less ridiculous than this. But that would NEVER be allowed or entertained. So why are these?? This exemplifies more than anything how the idea that "Christianity" is under attack and that "Christians" are the ones who are the REAL targets of discrimination is the biggest load of hogwash in history. There are certain professions where you literally don't even have to do your job if you claim it as a personal belief and suffer no consequences.
I'm in the same boat as @Michelle. I find I have little to argue with you about the GOP anymore. I might still disagree with you on fiscal policy or political philosophy in general, but the religious right is totally off the rails at the moment...
I understand Christianity has quite a built in following and history, but I legitimately can't understand why it's anymore "valid" in carving out these types of exemptions than if I started worshipping the treadmill at my gym and built a series of rules and beliefs around it. See the George Carlin bit about worshipping the sun and praying to Joe Pesci.
Shortly about religion.
I don't understand why there is always such hostility. Christianity (many forms of), Islam and Judaism share at least half of the history and prophets. Can't they just get along?
Shortly about religion.
I don't understand why there is always such hostility. Christianity (many forms of), Islam and Judaism share at least half of the history and prophets. Can't they just get along?
Edit typo
Not to get too controversial, but just read their holy texts if you want an answer. Modern interpretations have softened or de-emphasized some of the rhetoric here. But a literal reading of various parts calls for hostility. And pre-modern adherents believed and lived that interpretation.
I think we've forgotten this in the modern era, where things like secularism have forced religion into a corner. But so long as divisive texts are interpreted as holy truths, they'll always carry a strain of hostility, imo.
Shortly about religion.
I don't understand why there is always such hostility. Christianity (many forms of), Islam and Judaism share at least half of the history and prophets. Can't they just get along?
Edit typo
Not to get too controversial, but just read their holy texts if you want an answer. Modern interpretations have softened or de-emphasized some of the rhetoric here. But a literal reading of various parts calls for hostility. And pre-modern adherents believed and lived that interpretation.
I think we've forgotten this in the modern era, where things like secularism have forced religion into a corner. But so long as divisive texts are interpreted as holy truths, they'll always carry a strain of hostility, imo.
There are opposing sects in the base religions themselves that rival or sometimes even surpass the ones that exist between Christianity/Judaism/Islam. One of the main reasons Iraq fell apart in the aftermath of the invasion was that no one listened to the people who were saying "once you depose Saddam, this whole Shite/Sunni thing is going to be an absolute powder keg you will have no control over." It's an open debate as to whether the Protestant KKK hated Catholics or Jews more. The fact that JFK was Catholic was a MAJOR scandal for large groups of people, who assumed he would be taking his orders from the Pope.
When the idea that non-white citizens would actually have what we'd refer to as "basic rights" was a laughable proposition (as in, there was no real worry they would ever be afforded them), it was Catholics/Irish/Italians who were also a focal point of outright hostility. However, when black people DID start demanding to be treated like full citizens, it allowed those groups of what were viewed as lower-class whites to move up the ladder and be assimilated into the larger group. The other must always exists, and it doesn't matter who it is, and is malleable to suit the needs of the moment. Though in the US, African-Americans are almost always on the list. The other groups take terms sharing the spotlight during various time-periods. In just the last 20 years it's shifted from Muslim, to gay, to Latino, to transgender, to Asian.
But one thing remains the same, which is that being a straight, white protestant is essentially the "default" American, and everything else is a variation from the norm, and somehow tainted or less pure, and thus, less deserving of full rights. And even if someone doesn't engage in outright animosity towards these groups of people, they also don't really give a shit that their citizenship is viewed as less than 100%, and often times isn't 100% in practice and the letter of the law. Because they are secure in their own, and don't believe anyone is ever coming for them.
But I guarantee you this, if in the (highly unlikely, even impossible) event the United States ever did become the white ethno-state the most extreme racists envision, those remaining would turn on each other in the exact same way, getting down to hair color or height if they had to. This worldview and political philosophy CANNOT sustain itself without someone to strip rights from so another group feels secure in their superiority. Which is why they all eventually collapse.
The groups change from time to time, but one thing is always similar. The group must be viewed as both exceptionally weak (meaning, we cannot let our strong country and populace be infected by the influence and ideas of these lesser people) AND so strong that they pose existential threat to the existence of the society. If you're saying to yourself "that doesn't make any sense", it's because it's not supposed to. And why the group being focused on can change at a moment's notice.
Comments
The statehood argument is about (a) letting them have representation in the House and Senate, and (b) stopping the federal government from interfering in their local government any more than they do to other states.
Yes, you're correct. It completely slipped my mind.
Yeah, I'm at work and I just forgot about it while typing the post.
I do suspect DC statehood would likely carve out an extra generous concession to federal interference. It'd almost certainly have to. But yeah, the feds wouldn't have veto power over everything as they do now. Another compelling reason for statehood that we haven't really talked about on here.
https://www.vox.com/2021/3/23/22346333/sidney-powell-dominion-defamation-lawsuit-trump
Israel held elections today. The 4th national election in 2 years. Once again, it looks like no one is overly likely to form a government. They'll probably need to have another election.
Georgia the state-state, or Georgia the sovereign-state?
Ya, definitely alot of grass is greener on the other side driving folks in the US to think it's better. But, in the best of times, multiparty systems still coalesce into coalitions, effectively not much different from the US two party system. And at the worst of times, you get what you just described.
The fact is, ratings are down without Trump, and alot of these reporters are more concerned with adding Twitter followers and building a brand that gets them booked on Sunday shows than asking any substantial questions. It's been quite clear since he lost his Twitter account just how much of a symbiotic relationship the former President and the media had. The cable networks and DC press corps have more to answer for in his rise and time in office than anyone.
And as a side note, if the right-wing media wants to keep going all in on the "Biden is senile" narrative and keep stepping on the same rake, have at it. What strategic advantage is there is constantly lowering expectations for your opponent that can be exceeded simply by acting normally??
Pass the voting rights legislation the House just approved one way or another, or every red state is basically going to attempt to go back to Jim Crow-like voting restrictions. They won't stop. We're about one cycle out from selectively administered literacy tests and land ownership requirements, or forcing someone to guess how many marbles are in a jar to get a ballot. They just made it a crime to offer someone standing line for 4 or 5 hours fluids. What lengths do you imagine they won't resort to??
Honestly, aside from any practical application, the water and food provision seems to me to have been included just to signal to everyone "yeah, we’re monstrous assholes, and we like being that way, try to stop us." I also saw a quote in a YouTube comment section about another topic (Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination). Which was that Lawful Good can't defeat Chaotic Evil, only Chaotic Good can. The Republican Party is screaming from the rooftops, from the Capitol insurrection to these laws, that they want to end American democracy. Tepid condemnations and pointing to the rule book won't stop them. Only action will.
Got a chance to glimpse some of it, and yeah, it was a huge wasted opportunity to make news on some serious issues. It's worth noting that the White House correspondents are only a small fraction of the news industry, so they're not representative. Nonetheless, the big problem seems to be that these reporters think they need to be like an ESPN-style commentary around election strategies. The Monday morning quarterback logic behind some of the questions was too much.
II find it weird that I am agreeing with you so much right now. Personal opinion, you are making more sense or like Mercury is in retrograde or something.
The only reason one could even offer for making this illegal is to suggest that people can be bought off in the absolute cheapest way possible. As if your average person (or ANY person really) would sell their vote for what amounts to (at most) $1.50 worth of food and water. It would also have to assume that the person providing the water and food was a.) asking everyone in line who they were voting for and b.) were refusing to give a bottle and a slice to everyone who said they were voting for a Republican. Which would never take place, and hasn't taken place.
The lines in Georgia (in a normal, non-pandemic year) are longer in urban areas. Which are filled with alot of African-American voters. Who tend to vote for Democrats (90%+). It's not a stretch to say any Georgia election in the near future could easily be decided by a few hundred votes. Waits of hours upon hours are not uncommon. Average temperature in Georgia in November can still be in the mid-70s. They just reduced the number of places you can drop off your vote, and the reasons you can request an absentee ballot, ensuring the lines will be MUCH longer going forward. And they just codified into law that free people in a supposedly free country can't give water or food to their fellow citizens who can't leave their spot in line to get their own. Anyone denying what is going on here is being wholly disingenuous, and that is the absolute NICEST thing I can say about them. In an unfiltered, non-regulated forum, I'd say much, much more. I hope thousands of people break this law in unison in 2022. They can't arrest them all.
It was just an opportunity to make my thoughts more clear without double-posting again. When you can see what the argument for it will be coming from a mile away, and it's nothing but pedantic bullshit that's only purpose is to provide plausible deniability to the real intention of the law, it really reveals how cynical and depraved the people pushing it through are. And it makes my blood boil. I haven't figured out what the strategy is to counter these kind of tactics without compromising your own values and morals. I don't know if there is one.
The latest indication of that was the sanctions imposed on Chinese officials connected with Xinjiang a few days ago in a joint effort by the EU, UK, US and Canada. That's the first time since Tiananmen Square in 1989 that the UK has put sanctions on China - and the first time it's ever done that to Chinese individuals.
It's not surprising that China has quickly responded by imposing sanctions of its own. If relations continue to deteriorate there may be a more general economic effect - both directly due to sanctions and indirectly as Western countries seek to reduce their dependence on China as a source for certain types of goods. I'm not convinced that will have an impact on Chinese decision-making, but coordinated international action certainly has much more of a chance of doing that than countries acting individually would.
Um, sometimes people push because someone is pushing back. They have no feelings about about a subject but if someone pushes it on them, well they will revolt. Not the subject matter.
Kay, umm... there are times when you just let it happen. Not let it go, but let it happen.
We are not pushing back. Gifted with an average, and in some cases above average intelligence, we get it. Even Zeke. Sorry Zeke but you fight against reality more than most.
We won, right? Look for what you want, not for what you are afraid of. It is all broken but there is hope now right?
It's honestly frightening that our political system is so utterly broken at the moment that the only way to hold massive media corporations and people accountable for attempting to undermine and damage the functioning of our democracy is thought court cases seeking monetary damages such as the above.
It's ludicrous that this is where we are. We need enormous governmental reform because next time - the GOP will undermine the faith in American democracy without presenting themselves as a target for being sued, and may actually win.
In the last 24 hours, I've seen the Georgia voting bill signed, Ben Shapiro's #2 at the Daily Wire say it doesn't go far enough and essentially call for literacy tests, and a guest on Tucker Carlson say that yes, in the next 10 years, the GOP will probably nominate a fascist and (surprise, surprise) insinuate that when it happens, it will be because the liberals MADE them do it, while Carlson nods along in agreement. Anyone who doesn't see where this is heading isn't paying attention to what they are admitting out loud.
The system, in general, sucks. We know this. But the problem, the absolute heart of the crisis of American democracy is that one of the two parties doesn't believe in it anymore. They are just biding their time until they can slowly eliminate it piece by piece. How much more evidence do we need?? This is not a belief that is reserved for pundits or right-wing shock jocks. This is all becoming mainstream belief among nearly half of Republican voters. Elections don't count if we lose, and laws should be implemented so we can't lose, no matter who loses their most basic fundamental rights because of it, and we aren't responsible for ANY of our own opinions, because those damn liberals just keep forcing me to do this.
As a side note, FOX only responds when the lawsuits start piling up. Bill O'Reilly and Roger Ailes stayed in power LONG after it was known they were habitual sexual predators, until the avalanche of lawsuits made it impossible to justify keeping them to the Murdochs financially. Since they are one of the wealthiest families in the world, you have to threaten to hit their pockets in a deep way. They canned Lou Dobbs already to avoid on lawsuit on this subject, which they never would have done otherwise.
What people don't realize is that much of right-wing media is subsidized at a loss by massively wealthy donors and business owners. Those books everyone writes?? They are bought up by think tanks to push them onto the NYT bestseller list. If any normal people do buy them, they function more as totems to sit on shelf than reading material. Limbaugh didn't make money in many markets because of the small list of companies who would advertise with him. Check out the commercials some night on FOX News during prime time. It is all late-night informercial-level stuff. Shady computer security subscriptions, gold sellers, etc etc. No serious companies are willing to purchase spots. But they are willing to lose that money to inject the propaganda into the nation's blood stream. They get paid back ten-fold in the end.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/arkansas-governor-signs-bill-allowing-medical-workers-to-refuse-treatment-to-lgbtq-people
The most disgusting thing about this country (or maybe humanity in general) is how people who CLEARLY have the least power in society are quickly framed as people asking for "special rights" (which are just the rights most people have by default) and that anyone who is required to afford them these basic rights (professionally and legally) are the REAL victims. After all, it's not the person who is denied a prescription from a fundamentalist pharmacist who should be complaining. It's the person who believes his "religious liberty" is so paramount that he shouldn't even be required to carry out the obligations of his own job.
Shit, why not just have a construction worker say his religion is explicitly against pouring concrete so he can stay home the week his company is working on a new parking lot?? It would be no less ridiculous than this. But that would NEVER be allowed or entertained. So why are these?? This exemplifies more than anything how the idea that "Christianity" is under attack and that "Christians" are the ones who are the REAL targets of discrimination is the biggest load of hogwash in history. There are certain professions where you literally don't even have to do your job if you claim it as a personal belief and suffer no consequences.
I'm in the same boat as @Michelle. I find I have little to argue with you about the GOP anymore. I might still disagree with you on fiscal policy or political philosophy in general, but the religious right is totally off the rails at the moment...
I understand Christianity has quite a built in following and history, but I legitimately can't understand why it's anymore "valid" in carving out these types of exemptions than if I started worshipping the treadmill at my gym and built a series of rules and beliefs around it. See the George Carlin bit about worshipping the sun and praying to Joe Pesci.
I don't understand why there is always such hostility. Christianity (many forms of), Islam and Judaism share at least half of the history and prophets. Can't they just get along?
Edit typo
Not to get too controversial, but just read their holy texts if you want an answer. Modern interpretations have softened or de-emphasized some of the rhetoric here. But a literal reading of various parts calls for hostility. And pre-modern adherents believed and lived that interpretation.
I think we've forgotten this in the modern era, where things like secularism have forced religion into a corner. But so long as divisive texts are interpreted as holy truths, they'll always carry a strain of hostility, imo.
There are opposing sects in the base religions themselves that rival or sometimes even surpass the ones that exist between Christianity/Judaism/Islam. One of the main reasons Iraq fell apart in the aftermath of the invasion was that no one listened to the people who were saying "once you depose Saddam, this whole Shite/Sunni thing is going to be an absolute powder keg you will have no control over." It's an open debate as to whether the Protestant KKK hated Catholics or Jews more. The fact that JFK was Catholic was a MAJOR scandal for large groups of people, who assumed he would be taking his orders from the Pope.
When the idea that non-white citizens would actually have what we'd refer to as "basic rights" was a laughable proposition (as in, there was no real worry they would ever be afforded them), it was Catholics/Irish/Italians who were also a focal point of outright hostility. However, when black people DID start demanding to be treated like full citizens, it allowed those groups of what were viewed as lower-class whites to move up the ladder and be assimilated into the larger group. The other must always exists, and it doesn't matter who it is, and is malleable to suit the needs of the moment. Though in the US, African-Americans are almost always on the list. The other groups take terms sharing the spotlight during various time-periods. In just the last 20 years it's shifted from Muslim, to gay, to Latino, to transgender, to Asian.
But one thing remains the same, which is that being a straight, white protestant is essentially the "default" American, and everything else is a variation from the norm, and somehow tainted or less pure, and thus, less deserving of full rights. And even if someone doesn't engage in outright animosity towards these groups of people, they also don't really give a shit that their citizenship is viewed as less than 100%, and often times isn't 100% in practice and the letter of the law. Because they are secure in their own, and don't believe anyone is ever coming for them.
But I guarantee you this, if in the (highly unlikely, even impossible) event the United States ever did become the white ethno-state the most extreme racists envision, those remaining would turn on each other in the exact same way, getting down to hair color or height if they had to. This worldview and political philosophy CANNOT sustain itself without someone to strip rights from so another group feels secure in their superiority. Which is why they all eventually collapse.
The groups change from time to time, but one thing is always similar. The group must be viewed as both exceptionally weak (meaning, we cannot let our strong country and populace be infected by the influence and ideas of these lesser people) AND so strong that they pose existential threat to the existence of the society. If you're saying to yourself "that doesn't make any sense", it's because it's not supposed to. And why the group being focused on can change at a moment's notice.