All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[InformationGeek]

Joel says it was a legitimate commercial break, and that he was on after the break.

https://twitter.com/JoelMartinRubin/...19617412730880

I don't know. I watched television a lot over the years. When there's a commercial break, there's usually a good breaking point to cut, like the anchor is saying they'll be right back, a movie fading to black after a scene, or such. This... this is just abrupt. It's like a bad YouTube ad that cuts in during the middle of something big in a video.

Plus, I believe I heard that they only came back from a previous break a few minutes before this one. I feels very fishy to me, like they wanted to cut to something abruptly.

[Tami]

School curriculum provokes angry backlash

Parts of a school curriculum that teach children about same-sex relationships, gender identity and sexual orientation have caused an uproar in Birmingham, England. CNN's Milena Veselinovic

[Malvolio]

Damn, that hadn’t occurred to me, but yeah, you’re right, that DOES make things worse.

I realized it as soon as I noticed the sunglasses on Trump, who wouldn't even wear shades when he looked at a solar eclipse. However, I don't see how the cartoon is antisemitic. It's anti-Netanyahu. Yes, he's wearing a Star of David, but would you suggest that an anti-Franklin Graham cartoon is anti-Christian just because it depicts him wearing a cross?

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Exactly. We were always going to roll over the Iraq army. The difficult part was that after you start a war you have to finish it, and we have yet to finish it. If you have a strong enough army you can go in and kill anyone. We completely fucked the entire region, were never able to install a successful government in Saddam's absence, an insurgent faction rose up and caused more death and destruction in the reason, power vacuum's were created, more enemy's rose up, Iraqi and American's alike continue to die over there.

It was a costly war that ultimately did nothing for us and we didn't make Iraq better for it. They were better off without US involvement.

I seriously doubt anyone cared about what would happen after Saddam was removed, some might say that was never a consideration from jump street. Right or wrong, I’ve always been of the belief Dubya was hellbent on finding someone, ANYONE to punish for 9/11 or he’d never get a second term, and since he couldn’t find Osama bin Laden, he went after his daddy’s old sparring partner from the first Gulf War instead, complete with lies about WMD’s, and the rest was history. Taking into account the Middle East has been a clusterfuck since the Last Supper, overthrowing a dictator in that cauldron was a monumental mistake that, to date, has cost thousands upon thousands of lives, both Americans and Iraqis.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I seriously doubt anyone cared about what would happen after Saddam was removed, some might say that was never a consideration from jump street. Right or wrong, I’ve always been of the belief Dubya was hellbent on finding someone, ANYONE to punish for 9/11 or he’d never get a second term, and since he couldn’t find Osama bin Laden, he went after his daddy’s old sparring partner from the first Gulf War instead, complete with lies about WMD’s, and the rest was history. Taking into account the Middle East has been a clusterfuck since the Last Supper, overthrowing a dictator in that cauldron was a monumental mistake that, to date, has cost thousands upon thousands of lives, both Americans and Iraqis.

I don't even think it was that. I think W just wanted to finish Daddy's war and he had an excuse he could use to sell it and a hyper nationalistic sentiment in the country after 9/11 to get people on board. Either way, we had no business being there and despite us clearly being able to roll over the Iraq Army, it showed why it's a fools errand to insert yourself into these geopolitical shitstorms that have nothing to do with us.

[GindyPosts]

Former Indiana senator Richard Lugar has died. The man worked hard to help reduce our Cold War stockpiles and moderate between Republicans and Democrats, and honestly, made me proud to be a Hoosier when he was in office.

[TriggerWarning]

The thing is you are both right. If you take the Religious Right's point of view then Mets has a point, to them abortion is killing babies and then there really shouldn't be tolerance for it except in extreme situations where more than one life is at stake. If you take what I'm assuming is your point of view (and mine) that abortion is a very different thing than what Mets thinks it is, then limiting it the way Mets says becomes very problematic.

The problem ultimately is that both sides have fundamentally different beliefs on what it actually is and you can't compromise on either. And because the right has stronger beliefs on it because of the severity of what they think it is.... they tend to vote on it more.

I've never really seen the point in debating the abortion issue because it's such a clear and distinct difference of opinion that is the root of the debate that you either believe it or you don't and you aren't going to convince people

Like you said there can never be agreement because of the fundamental difference in opinion on whether its a life or not. That said while I'm more pro life than pro choice (and I'm also an atheist so I'm not pro life for religious reasons) but I get highly frustrated with both sides about not finding some common sense agreements to reduce abortion.

The pro life side should absolutely support free and widely available birth control to women to prevent pregnancy but they get unhinged at the concept. You can't trust that people will have a condom handy in the heat of the moment (and obviously not in cases of rape) so giving the women easy access to something that works month long is critical.

Both sides should work together to make adoption a more viable option. My sister has adopted four children so I know first hand through her what the market is like - she adopted four black infants over 4 years before she would have ever risen to the top of the wait list for a white baby. White infants are in demand but there is a surplus of everyone else. To make women more likely to consider adoption over abortion you have to actually be able to convince the woman there are families out there who want the baby and that just isn't true unless your baby is white. Some combination of incentives and tax breaks if you adopt an older child or a minority one would help.

[Mister Mets]

The thing is you are both right. If you take the Religious Right's point of view then Mets has a point, to them abortion is killing babies and then there really shouldn't be tolerance for it except in extreme situations where more than one life is at stake. If you take what I'm assuming is your point of view (and mine) that abortion is a very different thing than what Mets thinks it is, then limiting it the way Mets says becomes very problematic.

The problem ultimately is that both sides have fundamentally different beliefs on what it actually is and you can't compromise on either. And because the right has stronger beliefs on it because of the severity of what they think it is.... they tend to vote on it more.

I've never really seen the point in debating the abortion issue because it's such a clear and distinct difference of opinion that is the root of the debate that you either believe it or you don't and you aren't going to convince people

There is a further complication in that there's often a focus on sides rather than the specific situation being discussed.

I wasn't making any effort to persuade anyone against abortion. My main points were factual, addressing what another poster had said about the reasons for late-term abortion, analyzing the results of a study, and describing a particular label. But there is the view that if you're making any argument that favors one side, it should be a proxy for the larger topic.

I'll note sensitive topics are often addressed fairly here. WestPhillyPunisher posted about a screw-up the New York Times made in its criticism of Trump (I know he doesn't care for Trump and I'm guessing he wants the mainstream media to go after Trump), and engaged with points on the topic on evidence that was against his "side". Malvolio was skeptical, but his focus was on the specific news item, rather than inferring that opposing a specific criticism of Trump meant agreement with his larger policies.

I realized it as soon as I noticed the sunglasses on Trump, who wouldn't even wear shades when he looked at a solar eclipse. However, I don't see how the cartoon is antisemitic. It's anti-Netanyahu. Yes, he's wearing a Star of David, but would you suggest that an anti-Franklin Graham cartoon is anti-Christian just because it depicts him wearing a cross?

If this is just about a politician and not about Judaism, why do they have Donald Trump wearing a skullcap?

[Tami]

William Barr Directs DOJ Official to Defy Congressional Subpoena to Testify About 2020 Census

Attorney General William Barr directed a Justice Department official to defy a congressional subpoena to testify before a House committee, according to a letter obtained by Newsweek, a move that is likely to heighten the tension over the ongoing investigations of the Trump administration by Congress.

Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd told the House Oversight and Reform Committee in a letter on Wednesday that John Gore, the principal deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, would not provide a deposition, which was scheduled for Thursday, regarding the Trump administration’s push to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

The committee is investigating the administration's desire to include the question, as the Supreme Court has signaled it could approve the addition. Critics argue that a citizenship question would discourage millions of immigrants from completing a census, leading to skewed results.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

There is a further complication in that there's often a focus on sides rather than the specific situation being discussed.

I wasn't making any effort to persuade anyone against abortion. My main points were factual, addressing what another poster had said about the reasons for late-term abortion, analyzing the results of a study, and describing a particular label. But there is the view that if you're making any argument that favors one side, it should be a proxy for the larger topic.

I understand what you were saying. Yes the right tends to fundamentally disagree on what abortion is so there is no reasonable compromise. If you truly believe there is no difference between abortion and killing a baby in it's crib then there is no reasonable compromise you could make with someone who supports it. It's a belief thing. Either you believe it or you don't.

And yes you are right, the argument of abortion being for life threatening instances or major health complications are not what is predominately the leading cause of abortion. I forget what the last statistics on it are but it's definitley consistently been something like 95% of abortions are unwanted pregancy and the remaining are some combination of rape/health complications. So even if you can find common ground on those instances, you would still only have worked a tiny sliver of the issue and still would have everyone fighting over slightly less than all that occur.

Which is why I think it's just better for both sides to win where they can and let it play out because there is no compronise and you can't fundamentally change opinions like that.

[mogwen]

so, What's happening with the N.R.A.? Looks like GOT right now. Is House of the Gun going to fall?

[Tami]

so, What's happening with the N.R.A.? Looks like GOT right now. Is House of the Gun going to fall?

Depends on what the state investigations into it turn up. If the NRA are charged with financial crimes or terrorism then yeah, they will probably fall hard. Anything less than that might give them wriggle room for a comeback.

[Malvolio]

There is a further complication in that there's often a focus on sides rather than the specific situation being discussed.

I wasn't making any effort to persuade anyone against abortion. My main points were factual, addressing what another poster had said about the reasons for late-term abortion, analyzing the results of a study, and describing a particular label. But there is the view that if you're making any argument that favors one side, it should be a proxy for the larger topic.

I'll note sensitive topics are often addressed fairly here. WestPhillyPunisher posted about a screw-up the New York Times made in its criticism of Trump (I know he doesn't care for Trump and I'm guessing he wants the mainstream media to go after Trump), and engaged with points on the topic on evidence that was against his "side". Malvolio was skeptical, but his focus was on the specific news item, rather than inferring that opposing a specific criticism of Trump meant agreement with his larger policies.

If this is just about a politician and not about Judaism, why do they have Donald Trump wearing a skullcap?

Trump's daughter had a Jewish wedding. I would not be surprised if Trump wore a yarmulke in the Temple.

[Malvolio]

I understand what you were saying. Yes the right tends to fundamentally disagree on what abortion is so there is no reasonable compromise. If you truly believe there is no difference between abortion and killing a baby in it's crib then there is no reasonable compromise you could make with someone who supports it. It's a belief thing. Either you believe it or you don't.

And yes you are right, the argument of abortion being for life threatening instances or major health complications are not what is predominately the leading cause of abortion. I forget what the last statistics on it are but it's definitley consistently been something like 95% of abortions are unwanted pregancy and the remaining are some combination of rape/health complications. So even if you can find common ground on those instances, you would still only have worked a tiny sliver of the issue and still would have everyone fighting over slightly less than all that occur.

Which is why I think it's just better for both sides to win where they can and let it play out because there is no compronise and you can't fundamentally change opinions like that.

We were specifically discussing abortions in the third trimester, the majority of which are done for the health of the mother, the lack of health of the fetus, or both.

[numberthirty]

We were specifically discussing abortions in the third trimester, the majority of which are done for the health of the mother, the lack of health of the fetus, or both.

Never mind that some of what I've heard/seen is that some of the laws are specifically talking about an instance where the mother's health is at risk. The laws are not written so just anyone can get one.