All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

[Mister Mets]

I can see why having a discussion with you can be difficult at times. Instead of responding to my content, or not responding st all, you make a comment like that (highlighted)....which makes no sense. Kind of like critiquing a store based on it's window dressing without actually going inside and see what is there.

Anyway, I think that you are missing the point. Comparing Gun Ownership to pregnancy isn't really analogous. However, since it was brought up, guns are like cars, objects that people buy and that can be dangerous if used incorrectly. Cars are nationally registered, there are databases where you can search for a car based on the car's VIN number. This includes car ownership. No one on either side has so far complained about this. However, one side does have an issue with doing the same for guns. Admittedly, the constitution does not mention automobiles in it as one of the freedoms, so maybe the Founding Fathers were a little short sighted in that respect.

Data is already collected on pregnancies and births, usually tied to the US Census or the NIH. Thing is, as with most ethical forms of data collection, the information is general and anonymous. No personal information is collected. The US Census does eventually collect personal information, but there are laws governing how long that information must remain classified until it can be made available to the public. Though even that data does not include information on any household members who are pregnant at the time.

So, having access to data on Currently Pregnant women, real time and open access information available to government officials or worse the general public, can lead to all sorts of abuses. Remember, a women going to a women's health clinic for any reason, including wellness checks on her pregnancy or to find out if she is even pregnant, can be met in some states with protests from anti-abortion activists.

Imagine what a nightmare it would be if every pregnant woman was tracked back to her home, subject to continuous harassment by these protestors, deluged with graphic anti-abortion flyers in the mail, or emails and texts using profanity and threats, regardless if the woman wants the pregnancy or not or if there are other medical issues involved.

Then there is possible enhanced government involvement, who knows how bad that could get. Well, some know already.

Tami, I specifically responded to your content.

I believe it is an example of a motte and bailey, where there's a shift from one argument to another. The comments I was responding to were not saying that this proposed law represents a slippery slope paving the way for worse future legislation, creating mechanisms for secret databases that could be abused and/ or including features that would be objectionable to the pro-choice side (IE- not allowing any organization that provides abortions to be included within the resources.) They were suggesting that the current purpose of the bill is to have a record of women (and other 'uterus-havers') who are fertile as a way to punish them, which is a conclusion that should be explained. I think I would be called out for any similar leap in logic, especially without explanation. When I talk about slippery slopes, I generally mention where and how it can lead somewhere.

I thought your comment was nuanced. I meant that as a compliment.

On the "missing the point" er- point, I completely understand that you think there's a serious concern that should be addressed. But that focus can be used to excuse sloppiness anywhere. It gets to the whole argument from Trump supporters that he should be taken seriously and not literally, that we should focus on the problems of the country, rather than what he actually says.

The issues that fall on the traditional left/ right spectrum are important. But it's also important to consider other questions. There's a book called Solidarity that suggests liberals should not call out the left, and I think that approach is damaging if widespread. If someone seems mistaken on an important topic, it's fair to point out any errors, since that can have consequences later.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/books...rix-interview/

[aja_christopher]

I wouldn't call it a loaded question

Of course you wouldn't.



Gaslight. Obstruct. Project -- it's clear that you cover the former and the latter.

The only thing that has changed is that your party leader is now on trial and should be charged with treason.

[Tami]

Tami, I specifically responded to your content.

I believe it is an example of a motte and bailey, where there's a shift from one argument to another. The comments I was responding to were not saying that this proposed law represents a slippery slope paving the way for worse future legislation, creating mechanisms for secret databases that could be abused and/ or including features that would be objectionable to the pro-choice side (IE- not allowing any organization that provides abortions to be included within the resources.) They were suggesting that the current purpose of the bill is to have a record of women (and other 'uterus-havers') who are fertile as a way to punish them, which is a conclusion that should be explained. I think I would be called out for any similar leap in logic, especially without explanation. When I talk about slippery slopes, I generally mention where and how it can lead somewhere.

I thought your comment was nuanced. I meant that as a compliment.

On the "missing the point" er- point, I completely understand that you think there's a serious concern that should be addressed. But that focus can be used to excuse sloppiness anywhere. It gets to the whole argument from Trump supporters that he should be taken seriously and not literally, that we should focus on the problems of the country, rather than what he actually says.

The issues that fall on the traditional left/ right spectrum are important. But it's also important to consider other questions. There's a book called Solidarity that suggests liberals should not call out the left, and I think that approach is damaging if widespread. If someone seems mistaken on an important topic, it's fair to point out any errors, since that can have consequences later.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/books...rix-interview/

Thank you for the compliment, but I hope you will forgive me for making this one suggestion. Perhaps you (and others do the same so you are not alone) could next time respond to individual posts indivdually. As soon as any poster responds to muliple posts all at once at whole lot of context and content gets lost and it is hard to figure out to whom the responses are going to or are intended for.

I have probalbly done it myself, but I try to avoid grouping people togther as much as possible. One of many reasons why I have such a high post count. Just a suggestion.

[JackDaw]

Thank you for the compliment, but I hope you will forgive me for making this one suggestion. Perhaps you (and others do the same so you are not alone) could next time respond to individual posts indivdually. As soon as any poster responds to muliple posts all at once at whole lot of context and content gets lost and it is hard to figure out to whom the responses are going to or are intended for.

I have probalbly done it myself, but I try to avoid grouping people togther as much as possible. One of many reasons why I have such a high post count. Just a suggestion.

I think that’s a good suggestion.

In practical terms, for example, it makes it easier for whoever has been cited to spot that one of their posts is being referred to/questioned. And then easier to reply to…because a load of of other posts don’t need to be edited out before replying.

The flow of debate would be clearer.

[CaptainEurope]

“Eurovision - Pro-Palestinian demonstrators shout at fans heading into arena - report
The PA news agency is reporting that pro-Palestinian protesters are shouting at ticket holders as they head into Malmo Arena for the show.
The agency says demonstrators have positioned themselves on both sides of fans queuing to go in, shouting "free Palestine" and "shame".
Several protesters have also reportedly been detained and taken away by police.“

As if shouting at Eurovision ticket holders solves anything…

At least none of then parachuted into THIS music festival to shoot and rape audience members.

[ed2962]

Sen. Lindsey Graham on Meet The Press today completely incoherent...saying things like "This is not Viet Nam!" and somehow bringing up multiple times the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima as justification for what's going on in Gaza and then saying we're not giving a single penny to Isarael...?

[Jack Dracula]

This kind of rhetoric makes it difficult to argue that there's anything uniquely bad about Trump, which is important to persuade people to not vote for Trump.

A strong argument against Trump is that he has to be defeated, because he is an authoritarian and Biden is not. Trump does not care about the rule of law, or telling the truth. He does not abide by constraints/ legal limits. Things that restricted him in the past and kept his first term from being even worse would not apply in a second term, when he'll be surrounded by toadies who know how to use the levers of power and how to make it harder to push back against abuses.

This is a separate argument from left versus right, since it focuses on what is uniquely bad about Trump.

Stupidity is not a left or right issue.

There are plenty of obnoxious jerks on the Democratic side just due to pure chance.

Policy-wise if we want to have the best environmental outcomes, it's better to explore better ways to get cheap energy rather than convincing individuals to consume less.

A week ago, the Ezra Klein show had an interesting interview with Hannah Ritchie, the author of a book on green growth, exploring technological progress and how we can have better environmental outcomes without sacrificing quality of life.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/30/o...h-ritchie.html

I wouldn't call it a loaded question, although I don't necessarily reject the rhetorical strategy at all times. It's mainly when someone's suggesting there's something suspicious about a lack of a response.

You said "a simple question was asked regarding healthcare and (as usual) 30 didn't answer because he likewise knows he can't defend his arguments objectively."

This implies the question was so well-written that another person is obligated to respond. Because otherwise it's rude to call them out for a lack of a response. Does anyone think I'm off-base on that?

Israel is a nation represented in Eurovision.

That's as far as it goes.

I have no problem with criticizing Trump and all Republicans, including moderates in the same breath since he is the inevitable result of all your actions. Would I have a problem criticizing the failures and mistakes that resulted in a nuclear meltdown? No.
The truly disgusting thing about the Republicans drive towards partisanship, divisiveness, and hardball politics is that the party leadership and experts in conservative think tanks like The Heritage Foundation are all or do employ political science experts who have studied history and are familiar with the inevitable results of the kind of politics they’ve been implementing over the last three decades.
There is no way the people in charge weren’t aware of where their efforts were leading. Mitch McConnell and the other Republican senators who blocked Obama’s nomination of Garland to the SCOTUS did so fully understanding they were violating a cherished democratic norm and then, by seating their own hand-picked judges, were corrupting one of the three branches of our government and dismantling a major gaurdrail against authoritarianism.
So, you can try to refocus the argument on Trump in an effort to distract from the responsibility all Republican voters including moderates carry for bringing us to this point, but until you all accept your culpability and reverse your parties course, the US will always be on the verge of authoritarianism.

[Mister Mets]

Thank you for the compliment, but I hope you will forgive me for making this one suggestion. Perhaps you (and others do the same so you are not alone) could next time respond to individual posts indivdually. As soon as any poster responds to muliple posts all at once at whole lot of context and content gets lost and it is hard to figure out to whom the responses are going to or are intended for.

I have probalbly done it myself, but I try to avoid grouping people togther as much as possible. One of many reasons why I have such a high post count. Just a suggestion.

I'll keep it mind. I don't think it'll be necessary most of the time to keep posts individual, but I can understand there are situations

I kinda figured people don't want to see a lot of posts in a row from me (which opens up the obvious rejoinder about why I should think they want to see any posts from me.)

[CaptainEurope]

Sen. Lindsey Graham on Meet The Press today completely incoherent...saying things like "This is not Viet Nam!" and somehow bringing up multiple times the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima as justification for what's going on in Gaza and then saying we're not giving a single penny to Isarael...?

He was faced with the historical fact that Reagan had withheld military aid multiple time from Israel when they went too far, a thing he now wants to hang Biden for. Of course, he had to distract by being outrageous.

[Mister Mets]

I have no problem with criticizing Trump and all Republicans, including moderates in the same breath since he is the inevitable result of all your actions. Would I have a problem criticizing the failures and mistakes that resulted in a nuclear meltdown? No.
The truly disgusting thing about the Republicans drive towards partisanship, divisiveness, and hardball politics is that the party leadership and experts in conservative think tanks like The Heritage Foundation are all or do employ political science experts who have studied history and are familiar with the inevitable results of the kind of politics they’ve been implementing over the last three decades.
There is no way the people in charge weren’t aware of where their efforts were leading. Mitch McConnell and the other Republican senators who blocked Obama’s nomination of Garland to the SCOTUS did so fully understanding they were violating a cherished democratic norm and then, by seating their own hand-picked judges, were corrupting one of the three branches of our government and dismantling a major gaurdrail against authoritarianism.
So, you can try to refocus the argument on Trump in an effort to distract from the responsibility all Republican voters including moderates carry for bringing us to this point, but until you all accept your culpability and reverse your parties course, the US will always be on the verge of authoritarianism.

I would think Republicans saw their opposition to the Garland nomination as within their power, and in the context of moves from both parties before.

Republicans have been reason to be upset at things Democrats did regarding courts. For example, Chuck Schumer led the first partisan filibuster of a nominee to the circuit court against Miguel Estrada, early in Bush's term.

https://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS...ada.withdraws/

Internal documents from Dick Durbin's office suggest that part of the reason for the opposition to Estrada was that Democrats were concerned he would be a potential Supreme Court nominee, which made him especially dangerous as he is latino. It seems outrageous that he was targeted in any way for not being white.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-sta...-in-memo-leak/

Republicans will say that they were nicer to Democratic nominees to the Supreme court than Democrats were to Republican nominees. Breyer and Ginsburg went through with less opposition than Roberts and Alito (Obama voted against Roberts, and was rewarded with the presidential nomination. Democrats did what they could to vote against Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barett, but the main difference is that unlike Republicans with Garland, they didn't have the votes. The least contentious of the last five Supreme Court nominations was Ketanji Brown Jackson.

I do not see any reason to conclude that if the situation had been reversed, a Democratic Senate majority leader would have automatically allowed a vote on an election year for the Supreme Court nominee of a Republican president.

I wrote this before, but I think Democrats had a bad hand (It was nine months before a presidential election, Republicans held the Senate, it would have flipped Supreme Court control to the liberal justices) but they played it poorly. There were still some things they could have done. They could have gone with a justice from a more valuable constituency, someone who inspires voters. The candidates for President could have gone to bat for Garland, making the case for why he deserves to be on the court more than whoever the Republicans nominate. Instead, Hillary and Sanders played coy about whether they would renominate Garland, which undercut some of the arguments for him (that the Supreme Court nominations should be above politics, that he is a remarkable nominee, etc.) They could have recognized Republicans had the Senate, and gone with an old center-right figure (Ted Olson, Orrin Hatch) who would be confirmed easily, would be to Scalia's left and not be on the court long. Instead, they ended up giving skeptical Republicans a big reason to vote for Trump. Voters had a chance to punish Republicans, but the party kept the Senate and took the White House with a god-awful candidate.

[zinderel]

I have no problem with criticizing Trump and all Republicans, including moderates in the same breath since he is the inevitable result of all your actions. Would I have a problem criticizing the failures and mistakes that resulted in a nuclear meltdown? No.
The truly disgusting thing about the Republicans drive towards partisanship, divisiveness, and hardball politics is that the party leadership and experts in conservative think tanks like The Heritage Foundation are all or do employ political science experts who have studied history and are familiar with the inevitable results of the kind of politics they’ve been implementing over the last three decades.
There is no way the people in charge weren’t aware of where their efforts were leading. Mitch McConnell and the other Republican senators who blocked Obama’s nomination of Garland to the SCOTUS did so fully understanding they were violating a cherished democratic norm and then, by seating their own hand-picked judges, were corrupting one of the three branches of our government and dismantling a major gaurdrail against authoritarianism.
So, you can try to refocus the argument on Trump in an effort to distract from the responsibility all Republican voters including moderates carry for bringing us to this point, but until you all accept your culpability and reverse your parties course, the US will always be on the verge of authoritarianism.

Eloquently stated and entirely accurate.

Unfortunately, it’ll fall on deaf ears and excuses will be made. Excuses that don’t hold up under scrutiny. Scrutiny that will be ignored or derisively dismissed.

Watch.

[Tami]

Mister Mets:

Interesting that this occurred just over 20 years ago. I wonder, all things considered, if the Democrats would ever do this again if put into a similar situation. Maybe, maybe not.

[aja_christopher]

[Mister Mets]

Mister Mets:

Interesting that this occurred just over 20 years ago. I wonder, all things considered, if the Democrats would ever do this again if put into a similar situation. Maybe, maybe not.

I don't think any Democratic staffer is going to say in writing that they're targeting a judicial nominee due to his race. I think they would be very wary of having that conversation, because of the possibility it'll leak and the likely ensuing shitstorm.

My brother works in DC, so I asked his thoughts. He said that the main change now is that Senators don't need to look for reasons to take steps against judicial nominees. They'll just say they disagree with the candidate's judicial philosophy and that's enough.

[aja_christopher]