Skip to content

The Politics Thread

1684685687689690694

Comments

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited September 2021
    The Democrats wouldn't be able to get away with it because the EXACT same 5 people who just ruled this way on the Texas law would reverse their position in the same way McConnell reversed his position on holding hearings for nominees in the last year of a Presidential term. I can even really believe anyone would bother to argue otherwise at this point.

    This law also ties into something else going on since Trump lost the election, which is the increasing tide of vigilantism taking hold among the far right:


    Zip ties. Just like the ones they had at the ready for Democratic lawmakers after they temporarily took one of the chambers at the Capitol. But I'm told in retrospect they were just "tourists". There is a fascist movement WELL underway in this country, and the first victims of our Brown Shirts are set to be teachers/administrators, doctors/nurses, and pregnant women and their families/friends.
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659
    edited September 2021
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Mantis37 wrote: »
    The Republicans, even in places where they have enacted voter suppression laws, may have reason to regret making abortion an issue for 2022. A lot of politicians who are ostensibly pro-life for the sake of their primary prospects will not relish having to deal with higher electoral turnouts.

    You might not want to be so certain of that. The Republicans aren't idiots. They're doing this because they think they can get away with it. There's a definite chance they can.

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/02/abortion-supreme-court-backlash-democrats-509241

    I think this is kind of a shoddily written article. The premise is: Republicans have been anti abortion since 1980, and there hasnt been outrage against them for it since then, so why now?

    The clear difference being - the courts have largely and successfully upheld Roe vs Wade until present. The Texas law is far and away the biggest defeat for Democrats on reproductive rights in 50 years.

    The central thesis to the backlash is that "things have changed", so just citing all the times before things have changed isnt terribly persuasive.



    I think a far more nuanced argument would be that Women were already voting with Democrats at an enormous clip for the last two electoral cycles, so maybe it's harder to realize meaningful gains in that sector moving forward. That might be true, but I still think even a small change can be devastating for the GOP, which already relies upon a thin minority system to scrape for power whenever they can.

    Ammar wrote: »
    It's quite a mess. I have several thoughts about it:
    • I think the Republicans definitely can get away with banning abortion. If you really care about abortion rights you wouldn't vote for the GOP anyway, so I don't see there being much backlash that counts.


    I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point here, but one thing I will say is that abortion and Roe vs Wade has been a significant motivating factor for conservatives for years to vote. If RvW dies because 30+ states adopt the dystopian Texas model for banning it, I think you''ll see less engagement for single issue voters citing abortion on the right and more engagement from those same single issue voters on the left.

    The values may not be inherently huge, but if 5% of evangelicals do not vote because this issue is settled, and 5% of the corresponding group on the left do vote - that could be a percent or two and flip a lot of house/senate/presidential races.
    ThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited September 2021
    Which is why THIS law was the one that was used rather than the more blatant, straightforward one in Mississippi. So you can still claim Roe exists, even though it really doesn't. If you end it outright and SAY so in a legal opinion, then you're the dog who caught the car. This allows you to keep chasing while still achieving everything you set out to do. The fact that they are willing to unleash citizen Christian militias to do so should tell you there is no bottom to where these people will go to get their way. Planned Parenthood in Texas has already had to attempt to file for a restraining order today because their employees are being stalked and surveilled by Texas Right to Life.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Mantis37 wrote: »
    The Republicans, even in places where they have enacted voter suppression laws, may have reason to regret making abortion an issue for 2022. A lot of politicians who are ostensibly pro-life for the sake of their primary prospects will not relish having to deal with higher electoral turnouts.

    You might not want to be so certain of that. The Republicans aren't idiots. They're doing this because they think they can get away with it. There's a definite chance they can.

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/02/abortion-supreme-court-backlash-democrats-509241
    I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point here,

    It's not my point. I'm just sharing an article I read on the subject. I'm not saying I agree with it. The only point I have is that nothing would surprise me at this point...
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Mantis37 wrote: »
    The Republicans, even in places where they have enacted voter suppression laws, may have reason to regret making abortion an issue for 2022. A lot of politicians who are ostensibly pro-life for the sake of their primary prospects will not relish having to deal with higher electoral turnouts.

    You might not want to be so certain of that. The Republicans aren't idiots. They're doing this because they think they can get away with it. There's a definite chance they can.

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/02/abortion-supreme-court-backlash-democrats-509241
    I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point here,

    It's not my point. I'm just sharing an article I read on the subject. I'm not saying I agree with it. The only point I have is that nothing would surprise me at this point...

    Oh - if it wasnt clear, that bit was after I quoted Ammar. I said I wasnt necessarily disagreeing with his point.
    Balrog99
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    edited September 2021
    As if I don't have enough to worry about, now there's this.

    https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/2021/09/03/flat-rock-hazardous-materials-state-of-emergency-wayne-monroe-counties/5711400001/

    This is practically in my backyard. My house is literally on one of the streets mentioned. With my chemistry background I could probably tell them what it is by just smelling it! I could definitely identify it with an air-pump and a charcoal tube. Well, as long as I could use the equipment at my workplace...
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    edited September 2021
    Evacuation isn't mandatory so as long as I don't smell anything in my basement I'm staying...

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/ford-plant-benzene-vapors-michigan-suburb-evacuation
    Post edited by Balrog99 on
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    Fyi: Benzene is a minor component of gasoline (0.62% is the permissible limit). With a 1000-3000 gallon spill it becomes a problem though. The area affected is 4-8 square miles so odds are it's not a major problem. That's why I decided not to evacuate unless I smell gasoline in my basement. I am in Zone 1 though, so it's a minor risk on my part.
  • McGollumMcGollum Member Posts: 22
    The only vaguely-political comment I have: That #coronavirus & subsequent lockdown(s) did cost me, and certainly not just me, a lot of money, which the government does NOT recompense. The mandatory masks alone ran at € 30 to 60 per month, and after one year we got a one-time € 150,- recompense only. Germany.
    • I am far from stylish and polished, but SOME anti-bacterial soap, some likewise laundry powder or gel, and some disinfection spray for furniture & cloth were not exactly an overreaction!
    Balrog99
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    McGollum wrote: »
    The only vaguely-political comment I have: That #coronavirus & subsequent lockdown(s) did cost me, and certainly not just me, a lot of money, which the government does NOT recompense. The mandatory masks alone ran at € 30 to 60 per month, and after one year we got a one-time € 150,- recompense only. Germany.
    • I am far from stylish and polished, but SOME anti-bacterial soap, some likewise laundry powder or gel, and some disinfection spray for furniture & cloth were not exactly an overreaction!

    Do you expect the government to recompense you for the pants you wear out of the house? They as well have been mandatory the last 2 plus years.

    I purchased a handful of reusable, washable masks for about $40 Canadian. I am down to two as friends have borrowed and lost them over the months, but I am still managing.
    ThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    A lot of businesses here have free masks at the entrances for customers. Its actually pretty nice.
    Balrog99
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    I get masks free at work. No questions asked. My daughter can get them at school for free too.
    ThacoBell
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    Interesting article about the war on terror. Kinda makes you wonder where we're heading...

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2021-08-24/resistance-futile
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Interesting article about the war on terror. Kinda makes you wonder where we're heading...

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2021-08-24/resistance-futile

    Fascism.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    edited September 2021
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Interesting article about the war on terror. Kinda makes you wonder where we're heading...

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2021-08-24/resistance-futile

    Fascism.

    Or Statism. Even the 'liberal' European countries were all in. When both sides agree on something like this, it's truly scary.

    I wonder though, if America had 'turned the cheek' after 9/11, what do you think would have happened? Would Americans have been satisfied if we didn't go full on war against terrorism? I think it's likely terrorism would have escalated if we'd done nothing. At what point would we have had to strike back? 20 years later and still so many questions...
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Interesting article about the war on terror. Kinda makes you wonder where we're heading...

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2021-08-24/resistance-futile

    Fascism.

    Or Statism. Even the 'liberal' European countries were all in. When both sides agree on something like this, it's truly scary.

    I wonder though, if America had 'turned the cheek' after 9/11, what do you think would have happened? Would Americans have been satisfied if we didn't go full on war against terrorism? I think it's likely terrorism would have escalated if we'd done nothing. At what point would we have had to strike back? 20 years later and still so many questions...

    We DIDN'T strike back though. The 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. The invasion of Afganistan had nothing to do with fighting back against terrorism.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Interesting article about the war on terror. Kinda makes you wonder where we're heading...

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2021-08-24/resistance-futile

    Fascism.

    Or Statism. Even the 'liberal' European countries were all in. When both sides agree on something like this, it's truly scary.

    I wonder though, if America had 'turned the cheek' after 9/11, what do you think would have happened? Would Americans have been satisfied if we didn't go full on war against terrorism? I think it's likely terrorism would have escalated if we'd done nothing. At what point would we have had to strike back? 20 years later and still so many questions...

    We DIDN'T strike back though. The 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. The invasion of Afganistan had nothing to do with fighting back against terrorism.

    If there is one thing the Bush Administration WAS correct about, it was that the overwhelming majority of the public would not care about the above. They knew any country with brown people with Muslim names and where you could show pictures of people in turbins and hijabs would suit their purposes just fine.

    When the soldiers were killed at the airport a few weeks ago, people were making a big deal on Twitter about a FOX News radio personality who tweeted something like "for every solider they kill, we should wipe out a city". My only thought was how people who were alive in the early 2000s could be shocked at this statement. Back then, it wasn't just the stuff you heard from fringe commentators. Back then it was MAINSTREAM talk you would hear at the water cooler at work, that MOST people agreed with wholeheartedly. You were in the minority if you didn't.
    ThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    When the soldiers were killed at the airport a few weeks ago, people were making a big deal on Twitter about a FOX News radio personality who tweeted something like "for every solider they kill, we should wipe out a city". My only thought was how people who were alive in the early 2000s could be shocked at this statement. Back then, it wasn't just the stuff you heard from fringe commentators. Back then it was MAINSTREAM talk you would hear at the water cooler at work, that MOST people agreed with wholeheartedly. You were in the minority if you didn't.

    One thing I think that illustrates the extent to which the withdrawal was a political, not a military, decision is that the bomb at the airport was the first time in 18 months that any US citizen (soldier or civilian) had been killed in Afghanistan. The US has had very little involvement in combat operations since 2014, so the soldiers there had much more in common with forces stationed in other countries as peacekeepers (like Cyprus) or support for allies (like South Korea) rather than fighting troops.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    Grond0 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    When the soldiers were killed at the airport a few weeks ago, people were making a big deal on Twitter about a FOX News radio personality who tweeted something like "for every solider they kill, we should wipe out a city". My only thought was how people who were alive in the early 2000s could be shocked at this statement. Back then, it wasn't just the stuff you heard from fringe commentators. Back then it was MAINSTREAM talk you would hear at the water cooler at work, that MOST people agreed with wholeheartedly. You were in the minority if you didn't.

    One thing I think that illustrates the extent to which the withdrawal was a political, not a military, decision is that the bomb at the airport was the first time in 18 months that any US citizen (soldier or civilian) had been killed in Afghanistan. The US has had very little involvement in combat operations since 2014, so the soldiers there had much more in common with forces stationed in other countries as peacekeepers (like Cyprus) or support for allies (like South Korea) rather than fighting troops.

    But it wouldn't have stayed that way. The Trump Administration basically negotiated a truce with the Taliban that made sure hostilities ended between us and them, but also essentially guaranteed that a.) the country was going to fall to them the moment we left and b.) that if we didn't leave in the approximate time frame provided, the ceasefire (so to speak) would not hold. Of course, if you believe Trump's own Defense Secretary at the end, there was never any intention to actually leave. So god only knows what their plan was then. So there certainly were military implications if we didn't want to break our word AGAIN (like with Iran).

    That being said, yes, it's political. You can certainly trust Americans to come to the right conclusion......after they've exhausted every other option getting to that point.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Interesting article about the war on terror. Kinda makes you wonder where we're heading...

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2021-08-24/resistance-futile

    Fascism.

    Or Statism. Even the 'liberal' European countries were all in. When both sides agree on something like this, it's truly scary.

    I wonder though, if America had 'turned the cheek' after 9/11, what do you think would have happened? Would Americans have been satisfied if we didn't go full on war against terrorism? I think it's likely terrorism would have escalated if we'd done nothing. At what point would we have had to strike back? 20 years later and still so many questions...

    We DIDN'T strike back though. The 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. The invasion of Afganistan had nothing to do with fighting back against terrorism.

    Al Qaeda was using Afghanistan as a base of operation. It's disingenuous to imply that because the hijackers were Saudi, only invading Saudi Arabia would have been an appropriate response. That's like saying if the terrorists responsible were from Sudan, we should have invaded Sudan. It didn't really matter where they came from, it mattered where their leaders were based.
    DinoDin
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Interesting article about the war on terror. Kinda makes you wonder where we're heading...

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2021-08-24/resistance-futile

    Fascism.

    Or Statism. Even the 'liberal' European countries were all in. When both sides agree on something like this, it's truly scary.

    I wonder though, if America had 'turned the cheek' after 9/11, what do you think would have happened? Would Americans have been satisfied if we didn't go full on war against terrorism? I think it's likely terrorism would have escalated if we'd done nothing. At what point would we have had to strike back? 20 years later and still so many questions...

    We DIDN'T strike back though. The 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. The invasion of Afganistan had nothing to do with fighting back against terrorism.

    Al Qaeda was using Afghanistan as a base of operation. It's disingenuous to imply that because the hijackers were Saudi, only invading Saudi Arabia would have been an appropriate response. That's like saying if the terrorists responsible were from Sudan, we should have invaded Sudan. It didn't really matter where they came from, it mattered where their leaders were based.

    The Taliban literally offered us Bin Laden, and we refused. He had nothing to do with our invasion. You might remember we STAYED after we made sure that we could take sole credit for finding Bin Laden.


    To put this in perspective, imagine we bombed Dubai (or some other foreign power). They invade Canada. Now the Canadian government finds the person who planned the bombing, and offers him up on a silver platter so that they will leave and stop killing Canadian civillians. The UAE instead goes, "Nah, we don't want him. We're just gonna keep killing Canadians." And then they invade Mexico for good measure.

    Like, this is exactly what happened with the proper nouns changed. How can anyone see this chain of events and go, "Yup, that was all about 9/11."
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited September 2021
    It's a line that has apparently been lost to history, but after Bin Laden escaped at Tora Bora, and the domestic focus was now on the push toward Iraq, Bush was asked in an impromptu question about the mastermind and said, and I quote, "frankly, I'm not all that concerned about him". And why would you be when you're too busy trying to convince the American public Saddam Hussein is mere months away from being able to nuke an American city. We created a terrorist group far bigger and more problematic than Al-Qaeda (ISIS). They didn't exist before the occupation.

    And the reason Saudi Arabia wasn't only not invaded, but wasn't even brought up in conversation about the subject is pretty simple. The Bush and Cheney oil connections to the Saudi Princes. They saw Afghanistan and Iraq as "easy". Quickly winnable, and stepping stones to eventually marching on Tehran. Reality interceded.
    ThacoBell
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    I'm not certain that the Taliban's offer was truly genuine since they asked to see our evidence before handing Bin-Laden over. The evidence itself would likely have given away our methods and/or compromised agents in the field. My feeling is that the offer was a sham. Regardless of whether or not Afghanistan was a sideshow, we had valid reasons for being there. At least at the beginning...
    DinoDin
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,567
    edited September 2021
    Seems to be some rewriting of history here. If you want to argue that invading Afghanistan was a mistake, I guess you can. Certainly grave errors were made during the long occupation.

    But it was enormously popular among the public at the time, and didn't require any ginning up a la Iraq. Bin Laden & company bragged about the attack and the Taliban bragged about abetting Bin Laden. I frankly don't see a scenario where any US president refuses to invade Afghanistan after what happened. The legitimate government of Afghanistan, the Taliban, did commit a legitimate act of war against the US. Not every US conflict is Vietnam or Iraq.

    And I agree with Balrog here, there was no reason for the US government to trust any deal by the Taliban. There's still no reason to trust them, frankly. We already have evidence that the lied about zero violent reprisals after their takeover.
    Balrog99
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    History is written by the winners. Hopefully this case is the exception...
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    @DinoDin

    "But it was enormously popular among the public at the time, and didn't require any ginning up a la Iraq."

    I missed the part where that makes it right?
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    @DinoDin

    "But it was enormously popular among the public at the time, and didn't require any ginning up a la Iraq."

    I missed the part where that makes it right?

    Democracies don't always do the right thing. Just like human beings.
    DinoDin
  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 1,295
    I think one nuance that easily gets lost in statements like this:
    We already have evidence that the lied about zero violent reprisals after their takeover.

    is that they are not really monolithic organizations and can be treated like individuals. They are more like umbrella organizations for various groups roughly wanting the same thing. Same holds for other resistance/terrorist/freedom fighter organizations like the IRA, Hamas but also for example all the paramilitary forces that later became the IDF.

    If you make agreements with the leadership the best they can offer is that the majority of members will honor the deal - there will always be disgruntled subgroups that are more extremist than even the leadership of those organizations.

    Not saying necessarily that this is the case here, just something to keep in mind. I think it is genuinely an obstacle to peace in situations like Gaza - Hamas will never be able to perfectly adhere to promises not to fire any missiles, because they don't have that kind of control over the individual members.
    Balrog99BallpointManGrond0dunbar
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited September 2021
    Biden went HARD on vaccine mandates in certain sectors of employment this afternoon, the main quote being "we've been patient, but our patience is wearing thin." About time someone spoke up for the OVERWHELMING majority sentiment in this country, instead of coddling and infantilizing the same set of voters being interviewed in diners for the 500th time. I think it's hilarious some in the media think this is a politically perilous road to go down. The only reason for thinking it is given the public's actual views on this subject are the overwhelming power of the conservative media bubble making the opposite view seem FAR more popular than it actually is.

    While I agree with seatbelt laws, you can at least make reasonable argument the only person you are putting in danger by not wearing one is yourself. That argument can't be made in regards to COVID-19, which is much more akin to the dangers from second-hand smoke. Certain people bitched about being forced outdoors into specific areas when we moved it out of indoor public spaces as well. But it worked. And the danger from the virus is FAR more acute than that of second-hand smoke. Nevermind the already sizabey le list of vaccinations every parent needs to have their children take to partake in things as normal and routine as daycare and school.

    It is past time for persuasion. That ship has sailed, and was never really docked in the port in the first place. The only solution is ultimatums. I applaud this new, tougher stance even more than I do withdrawal from Afghanistan. Frankly, this should have been done months ago, but every benefit of the doubt was afforded to the holdouts. Enough is enough. 75% of this country is not going to be perpetually held hostage by the other 25%.

    I listened to an interview with a man who wrote a book on science denialism this evening. His conclusions, boiled down, were pretty basic. They are basically indistinguishable psychologically from hardcore conspriacy theorists. Mocking them doesn't work, but neither does showing up with facts and figures. Both harden their position equally. The ONLY thing that moves them is the endless attempts and patience of someone they absolutely trust. And, frankly, we don't have the time or the requisite manpower of people with the disposition of saints to attempt this Jedi mind trick on 50 million adults. But he also mentioned they WILL be moved reluctantly into action if the convenience cost to their life is high enough. "Forcing" them to do it actually allows them to save face in whatever stupid-ass drama they have going on in their head.
    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
    ThacoBellBalrog99
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    George W Bush’s speech from 9/11. He’s considered by many the second worst president ever, but he miles above the person in last place (IMO)

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/11/politics/transcript-george-w-bush-speech-09-11-2021/index.html

    Yes, IMO, his inaction leading up to 9/11 is partially to blame for what has happened, but his speech carries weight for the sacrifices people have made, where America should be, and where it actually is.

    I do wish the Republican Party was still slightly more like him. You can tell he genuinely cares for the country and it’s inhabitants and not just for personal gain.
    BallpointMan
Sign In or Register to comment.