All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Normally I'd quote responses and more. But this is what was released in February from studies made by some scientists...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00584-8

What makes it sad is Jon Stewart is considered a smart , reasonable person who 99% of the time doesn't jump to conspiracy stuff. Its like watching Walter Cronkite build his reputation and claim that the CIA killed Bobby Kennedy.

No one knows if the Chinese government in a lab accidentally released a virus. It makes a great story and given the government there its believable.

But as experts weigh in many are believing the simplest thing happened at that market there as the link claims. Which isn't as newsworthy as lab accident etc.

[babyblob]

Could we stick a pin in this for two years, and reevaluate for accuracy?

Yes because the GOP packed SC will not at all in any way go after the things the GOP said they wanted gone.

[Kirby101]

Could we stick a pin in this for two years, and reevaluate for accuracy?

Sure, I already predicted Roe, Miranda and Church and State.

[Reviresco]

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/mar...ey-abrams-wins



Marjorie Taylor Greene says Republicans will move out of Georgia if Stacey Abrams wins

Gaetz questioned how future elections would operate if Abrams moved into the Governor’s Mansion with incumbent Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger still in office.

"She wins and she’s the governor with Brad Raffensperger as secretary of state, how long will it take to save Georgia from that because they’re gonna do institutional things to harm the voting process," Gaetz stated.

Greene did not have a direct answer to that, but made the prediction that an Abrams win would turn Georgia even closer to a Blue state through active attrition.

"Yeah, well number one, we have multiple problems. Number one, most people I know who like that’s kids have grown and they’re empty-nesters, they all say, we will move. They’re saying they will move out of Georgia. They will move to Alabama, Tennessee or Florida," Greene said.

Like I need another reason to vote for Stacy Abrams. LOL! We'd hold a parade escorting these whiny sore LOSERS out of the state.

Also, as usual, a Republican projecting exactly what the Republicans are doing in Georgia. SMH

[Gray Lensman]

Could we stick a pin in this for two years, and reevaluate for accuracy?

Obergefell is already in the GoP crosshairs. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying - whether to themselves or others.

State level Republicans have openly questioned both Brown and Loving. So, yeah. Watch this space.

[Mister Mets]

Obergefell is already in the GoP crosshairs. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying - whether to themselves or others.

State level Republicans have openly questioned both Brown and Loving. So, yeah. Watch this space.

We can reevaluate in two years and four months.

Should we have some kind of bet?

If the Supreme Court has reversed Brown and Loving, I'll promise to vote in the presidential election for anyone you guys tell me to vote for.

If the Supreme Court has not reversed either decision, would you guys agree to vote for whoever I tell you to vote for in the presidential election?

[babyblob]

We can reevaluate in two years and four months.

Should we have some kind of bet?

If the Supreme Court has reversed Brown and Loving, I'll promise to vote in the presidential election for anyone you guys tell me to vote for.

If the Supreme Court has not reversed either decision, would you guys agree to vote for whoever I tell you to vote for in the presidential election?

People should vote for who they believe is the best for the country and the office of president. I dont agree with who people vote for all the time but they are voting for who they think is best. Too many people died to make this a right for every citizen. Too many people are fighting to keep it a right for every citizen. It should never be used as a punishment for an internet wager. Shame on you.

[CSTowle]

Eh, I've seen a lot of hand wringing about the school vouchers case from Maine and it seems blown out of proportion. The whole thing stemmed from the state offering vouchers for families living in rural Maine (where it's so sparsely populated it doesn't make sense to have a school in every town) to be able to go to a school in another town of their choosing and the voucher was to offset the costs of those students to those other school districts since these student's families weren't paying into those systems with their taxes. A few years back they opened up the program to include not only public schools in other towns but also charter schools and private schools and once you do that there is no reason to deny cash towards a particular school because it happens to a religious school.
If they had never allowed private schools that don't receive state money to begin with to be choices for the voucher program there would be no problem in telling families they can't choose to send their kids to a private Catholic school but once you do allow that choice limiting to just non-denominational private schools(if such things even exist) doesn't work.

It might sound reasonable and that a precedent was set/guess we're stuck here (though I'd argue that's what the Court is supposed to be deciding on, whether or not the precedent set was valid or should be viewed as an aberration). The reason it's not reasonable is that it's one of many attempts to establish that "reasonable" precedent in order to normalize voucher programs. Why do they want voucher programs? Several reasons.

1. Tax money. Many conservatives don't enjoy the idea of paying for other people's kids to be educated with no immediate benefit to them, and to them questionable benefit in the long run (especially factoring in cost to outcome). Allowing people to use vouchers won't eliminate school funding, but it will take funds from existing public schools that are already underfunded and underperforming and may eventually collapse or marginalize the public education system itself and save them much more money in the long run.

2. Religious. They don't want separation of church and state, and have always seen that as a mistake or insidious communist plot (depending on their level of crazy) to undermine their god. By allowing their tax money to go to religious schools they're funding religious organizations. Think of the windfall that's going to be for churches and religious groups in the near future. They're also undermining the idea of separation of church and state, making it easier to go away from it entirely in the future and likely leading us to some version of a Christian Taliban (but it's OK, because they're the "good guys").

3. Unions and privatization. Conservatives tend to hate unions with a passion, and believe anything that can be done in the public sector would be done better in the private one. If you can defund public schools, shift that money over to private ones (religious or no), you can undermine the public school system and force them to break teacher's unions just to try to continue to survive. That may make it easier to pressure other public unions, and cuts into funding and support for the Democratic Party.

4. They qualify for vouchers too. If you get a voucher or tax break to send your child to the educational establishment of your choice unless that's means-tested (and it likely won't be), then those who can afford to send their children to expensive private schools are going to be getting a tax break. Meanwhile the families that can't afford those schools (these vouchers cover a portion of the cost, and most parents will not be able to cover the rest) or navigate the system to get their child approved (often based on connections, a game the wealthy tend to be far better at) are going to be stuck with those increasingly underfunded and collapsing public schools, or worse deciding to send their children to cheap religious schools that are going to give them an education of questionable quality (more likely in some areas of the country and among certain populations) and continue our downward decline as a country.

5. Selfishness/racism. Like many government benefits, the perception that they mostly go to "those people" makes it even more distasteful to fund for them than it would be if they were benefits exclusively for poor whites. In addition, paying for the education (especially higher education) of poor students might eventually create competition for their little darlings (though the system is highly weighted against that, again those wonderful connections and the resources that can be poured into these kids to get them to 3rd base out of the gate and on a track they have to intentionally f##k up to fail). Not a plus. And they have almost zero interest or loyalty to America as a country beyond platitudes and their love of their own freedom and self-perception as "boot-straps" self-made successes. If undermining education leads to a lower standard of living for the general population and eventual decline or radicalization of the population that's everyone else's problem. They have the wealth and connections to pick up and move to another country, with more of their wealth intact than if they'd fully funded a quality education for the masses. And if they should choose to stay, the general population will be more desperate and easier to exploit as a workforce.

This is a win-win-win-win-etc. for these people. It checks almost every box for conservatives, and if we can figure out a gun angle I'm sure they'd love that. Small, reasonable exceptions may make sense in a vacuum, but there's a clear intent here.

Normally I'd quote responses and more. But this is what was released in February from studies made by some scientists...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00584-8

What makes it sad is Jon Stewart is considered a smart , reasonable person who 99% of the time doesn't jump to conspiracy stuff. Its like watching Walter Cronkite build his reputation and claim that the CIA killed Bobby Kennedy.

No one knows if the Chinese government in a lab accidentally released a virus. It makes a great story and given the government there its believable.

But as experts weigh in many are believing the simplest thing happened at that market there as the link claims. Which isn't as newsworthy as lab accident etc.

Perhaps he wasn't joking, but if you believe he's a smart person 99% of the time and that as you say "no one knows if they accidentally released it" then maybe it's not as radical a thought as you're making it out to be. There was a reflexive shutting down of any discussion (which is almost always a bad idea) during the height of the pandemic because people were defaulting to "no" to any pushback on the narrative given anti-vaccination, anti-mask, anti-shutdown sentiment on the right (though let's not forget anti-vaccination started in part with well-meaning but ignorant members of the left long before Covid).

Not wanting to feed that pushback, being afraid that labeling it as the "Chy-na" virus (take a second to appreciate that we don't have that a##hole calling the shots anymore, or setting the narrative) would lead to anti-Asian violence as it did in many poorer areas of large cities, and being afraid picking at one thread of the narrative would make the whole thing collapse (it wouldn't, but people finding out you were mistaken but keeping anyone from correcting or even debating you while being wrong might undermine credibility and trust going forward) are understandable impulses. They're wrong, but they're understandable. People are already defaulting to their own bubbles of voices and sources that agree with the narrative they feel most comfortable (or entertained) with, creating another one doesn't help our society function. Especially during a crisis.

I still think he was making a joke, but even if he wasn't I give him the benefit of the doubt to question. And to take the answer if it turns out it wasn't from a lab. I think that's a healthy attitude, willing to question but accepting of the answer if it comes from a trusted source after serious work to get there. Not shutting debate down before it gets started, or ridiculing or marginalizing (or even dehumanizing) those who disagree with us or the prevailing narrative.

[Jack Dracula]

We can reevaluate in two years and four months.

Should we have some kind of bet?

If the Supreme Court has reversed Brown and Loving, I'll promise to vote in the presidential election for anyone you guys tell me to vote for.

If the Supreme Court has not reversed either decision, would you guys agree to vote for whoever I tell you to vote for in the presidential election?

Goodness knows the SCOTUS hasn't ever made extremely questionable and controversial decisions that went on to have far-reaching negative consequences.

[Mister Mets]

Goodness knows the SCOTUS hasn't ever made extremely questionable and controversial decisions that went on to have far-reaching negative consequences.

That's a different metric than whether they're going to reverse Loving V. Virginia.

People should vote for who they believe is the best for the country and the office of president. I dont agree with who people vote for all the time but they are voting for who they think is best. Too many people died to make this a right for every citizen. Too many people are fighting to keep it a right for every citizen. It should never be used as a punishment for an internet wager. Shame on you.

My guess is that no one's going to take the wager, because you guys don't seriously believe that the Supreme Court is going to reverse Brown V. Board of Education.

[babyblob]

That's a different metric than whether they're going to reverse Loving V. Virginia.



My guess is that no one's going to take the wager, because you guys don't seriously believe that the Supreme Court is going to reverse Brown V. Board of Education.

It doesnt matter if people do or not. Voting rights are being stripped away from the people of this country. We are having hearings about a terrorist attack caused by a man who spread lies about voter fraud and a party trying to undermine the process every chance they get. There are election workers and their families being threatened and harassed as we saw this week. The same with officials because they did their duty in the election process.

People who can vote need to vote for the candidate of their choice. To use the act and right of voting as a ploy and punishment in some goofy internet wager is insulting.

This is a comic book site. Bet a comic book, or a movie, or an action figure. Not a right people died for and are fighting for every day.

[Mister Mets]

In some ways the Supreme Court is more powerful than the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives?

It's complex.

The courts are one of the three branches of the government, in addition to the legislature (the House & Senate) and the executive branch.

There's an argument that congress has allowed the President to become too powerful, when these are supposed to be equal branches, with the legislature passing laws, the executive enforcing laws and the courts interpreting laws. Right now, we have a system where Congress seems to happy to give the President the credit and the blame.

On the power of the courts, I do think a lot of the legal discussions are disappointing because it just seems to be pretext for people's preferred policies. There isn't always a sense of someone's underlying legal principles, or when they would be okay with the court making decisions they wouldn't make as legislators.

Starving all children until we exclude the trans ones. Awesome.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...?ocid=BingNews

That's not how the decision goes.

Schools that have the Biden administration's preferred trans policies will still receive school lunch funds.

[Kirby101]

Funny how Mets doesn't want to talk about them ending Roe, Miranda and Church and State separation and gutting most gun regulation. Oh no, we are way too silly about more Rights being stripped away.
And if they don't reverse Brown, we all vote for DeSantis, sure that sounds great.

[Tendrin]

Funny how Mets doesn't want to talk about them ending Roe, Miranda and Church and State separation and gutting most gun regulation. Oh no, we are way too silly about more Rights being stripped away.
And if they don't reverse Brown, we all vote for DeSantis, sure that sounds great.

fascismover.jpg

Yeah. DeSantis. Right.

[Farealmer]

We can reevaluate in two years and four months.

Should we have some kind of bet?

If the Supreme Court has reversed Brown and Loving, I'll promise to vote in the presidential election for anyone you guys tell me to vote for.

If the Supreme Court has not reversed either decision, would you guys agree to vote for whoever I tell you to vote for in the presidential election?

One persons vote vs several peoples votes isn't a fair trade.