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

[Xheight]

The tougher part of this is that there is no reason to trust either side to stick to the bargain. Conservative politicians that do not believe global warming is a serious problem will use the same tactics to get around enforcing restrictions that they've used to get around all other environmental protections. Liberal politicians that believe abortion is a central reproductive right for all women will use similar tactics to get around restrictions on abortion procedures.

On top of this, here in the USA, I don't really believe that the Democratic Party is all that committed to fighting climate change OR that any of the drastic solutions would (a.) actually reverse anything, (b.) not cause even worse environmental and social problems or (c.) even get passed into law even if the Democrats retained control of Congress. I just don't have any faith that any US politician holding office today has the will to face climate change OR that anyone funding a US politician or the majority of people that would put them into office have climate change and global warming at the top of their minds when voting. I have no doubt that a politician would lose more votes by compromising on abortion rights than they would win by prioritizing global warming reductions.

I think this will become even more true when Roe v. Wade is eventually overturned or completely neutralized. Again, the solution will not come from giving government more powers as that's exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. That should have been the lesson of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The government and military had all the power and intelligence they needed to prevent them, but when they proved themselves completely incompetent, they asked for more power and it led to two costly wars, a surveillance state violating individual privacy, as well as actual torture and murder that they were allowed to keep secret (and probably still commit).

We'll need to take more power and freedom for individuals to force the necessary changes.

I share your skepticism and solution.

[Kirby101]

We'll need to take more power and freedom for individuals to force the necessary changes.

How do you see that working? How do we protect abortion rights without the government guaranteeing the right? What power would you give the individual to ensure a woman's right to chose that doesn't involve the government upholding it.
You give an example that has nothing to do with the things we are talking about. The failure of 9-11 and the wars was government over reach. But individuals alone will not stop Climate Change, this can only happening with governmental cooperation. How would individual freedom and power stop terrorist attacks?
Another example that is needed. Universal Healthcare, we currently have a system that gives the individual "freedom and power" it is a disaster and the worst system in the industrialized world.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2019, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” profiled Betty Price, a former member of the Georgia House of Representatives from District 48 who was first elected to office in a special election back in 2015. She is the wife of former Congressman and corrupt Trump Cabinet member Tom Price, and they truly are quite the pair. A bit of cursory research showed us that Betty Price has an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that seems rather absolute, and that in her brief voting record, that she was opposed to same sex marriages, as evidenced by her vote to allow religious officials to deny performing a marriage ceremony. Now, the main reason we’re profiling Betty Price is how in October of 2017, she pitched the idea of quarantining people mandatorily who were HIV Positive, wondering out loud if there were any legal way to do so, "And I don’t want to say the quarantine word, but I guess I just said it. Is there an ability, since I would guess that public dollars are expended heavily in prophylaxis and treatment of this condition. So we have a public interest in curtailing the spread. What would you advise or are there any methods legally that we could do that would curtail the spread. It seems to me it’s almost frightening the number of people who are living that are potentially carriers, well not carriers, with the potential to spread, whereas in the past they died more readily and at that point they are not posing a risk. So we’ve got a huge population posing a risk if they are not in treatment.” And wouldn’t you know it, when this fascist paranoia about the spread of HIV was reported on by the media, Betty Price had the very predictable response of claiming her comments were “taken out of context”. Even though she was recorded, and that recording was played, and in it, she starts off indicating she didn’t want to say the word “quarantine” because she knew that it was wrong to even suggest such a thing. Betty Price was swept away by the Blue Wave in 2018, being defeated by Democrat Mary Robichaux by 139 votes. This was even though she was caught coaching her own mother into who to vote for at the polls, and admonished for doing so by poll workers in her district. Price felt that the loss to Robichaux was close enough that she demanded a recount, but that only proved she actually lost by 150. American politics are certainly better off without Goody Price.



On this date in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, as well as 2020, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day posted profiles of Indiana State Senator Dennis Kruse, who in the quarter century that he’s worked in Hoosier State politics, whose political philosophies are downright theocratic. You see, Kruse doesn’t believe there should be a separation of church and state, has drafted legislation to make abortion illegal including in cases of rape and incest, sponsored a proposed amendment to the state constitution to ban gay marriage, denies the science of evolution, and tried to not just legalize school prayer but make it mandatory. Oh, and he was the sponsor of Indiana’s SB 101, the anti-gay “religious freedom” law, and after it passed, Dennis Kruse released a statement where he lied his homophobic arse off, trying to claim that the bill wasn’t that bad, and anyone who thought it would create an environment of discrimination “hadn’t read the bill” (They had, and it clearly was.). Even the bills he pitches that aren’t religiously motivated are downright insane, including one that was an attempt to nullify the United Nations Agenda 21 environmental treaty, because he’s convinced it’s a plot to take away citizens’ property rights, somehow.

Kruse won re-election in 2018 after getting to run unopposed yet again for his seat, now bringing his streak to four straight mid-term elections without an opponent since 2006. He has done almost nothing since the Covid-19 pandemic started as a legislator, and prior to it, he made it a point to sponsor legislation to allow retired police officers to carry firearms on public school campuses. Because we need MORE guns in schools.

Yes, Dennis Kruse stayed true to his partisan nature, refusing to get the Covid-19 vaccine, eventually getting sick, and ending up hospitalized in the ICU for ten days as a result. Does he regret not getting the vaccine and being part of the problem in our overcrowded hospital system? Of course not, he said he believes in natural “herd immunity”.

The good news is, Dennis Kruse has confirmed he will not run for re-election in 2022, so at least this will likely be the last time we ever have to mention this hyper-partisan maniac.

[Johnathan]

How do you see that working? How do we protect abortion rights without the government guaranteeing the right? What power would you give the individual to ensure a woman's right to chose that doesn't involve the government upholding it.
You give an example that has nothing to do with the things we are talking about. The failure of 9-11 and the wars was government over reach. But individuals alone will not stop Climate Change, this can only happening with governmental cooperation. How would individual freedom and power stop terrorist attacks?
Another example that is needed. Universal Healthcare, we currently have a system that gives the individual "freedom and power" it is a disaster and the worst system in the industrialized world.

Government cooperation would be nice, but government cooperation historically has been to maintain the interests contributing to the problems. Individual power is necessary to force the government to act, and what we need is the coercion of the government. I'd look back to the labor movement of the early 20th century in that it was government policies that supported unfair labor practices until collective action and even the threat of revolution coerced government action - same for civil rights.

However, what we've had since the 1970's is a serious diminishment of individual power to collectivize. There had never been an anti-war movement as large, organized and global as the one that formed against the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq and it had no effect on that conflict moving forward and continuing for decades. Here in the US, both conservatives and liberals have had periods where the people they vote for control all the branches of government and neither was able to actually provide anything their voters wanted because essentially the voters no longer matter -- or more importantly, can't do anything to force them to take action.

[GindyPosts]

Government cooperation would be nice, but government cooperation historically has been to maintain the interests contributing to the problems. Individual power is necessary to force the government to act, and what we need is the coercion of the government. I'd look back to the labor movement of the early 20th century in that it was government policies that supported unfair labor practices until collective action and even the threat of revolution coerced government action - same for civil rights.

However, what we've had since the 1970's is a serious diminishment of individual power to collectivize. There had never been an anti-war movement as large, organized and global as the one that formed against the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq and it had no effect on that conflict moving forward and continuing for decades. Here in the US, both conservatives and liberals have had periods where the people they vote for control all the branches of government and neither was able to actually provide anything their voters wanted because essentially the voters no longer matter -- or more importantly, can't do anything to force them to take action.

I look at the reversal of fortunes having started around the Reagan administration when he effectively gutted the power of the employees by destroying union bargaining power, reinforcing "right to work" laws, and making the climate favorable to corporate raiders who would buy massive shares of stocks to gain control of companies only to destroy them once they made their money or outsourced the work productivity to other countries that had less restrictions to increase profit margins. Ever since, the political pendulum shifted firmly towards the right-of-center at most on many policies, which is why things such as raising the minimum wage or reinforcing basic voter rights are met with "Gee, that would be nice, but..." even amongst many Democrats. And it seems like many of the presidents elected after Reagan reflect either a desire to continue the status quo or fears that we may somehow break out of this because something looks slightly off from the norm.

America historically has had hostility towards anything resembling "the left" or "socialism", and I doubt that'll ever change. But it sure feels like we're at a point where you just feel powerless to convince politicians to bend from their stance or reject the party mandate in favor of common sense.

[Johnathan]

I look at the reversal of fortunes having started around the Reagan administration when he effectively gutted the power of the employees by destroying union bargaining power, reinforcing "right to work" laws, and making the climate favorable to corporate raiders who would buy massive shares of stocks to gain control of companies only to destroy them once they made their money or outsourced the work productivity to other countries that had less restrictions to increase profit margins. Ever since, the political pendulum shifted firmly towards the right-of-center at most on many policies, which is why things such as raising the minimum wage or reinforcing basic voter rights are met with "Gee, that would be nice, but..." even amongst many Democrats. And it seems like many of the presidents elected after Reagan reflect either a desire to continue the status quo or fears that we may somehow break out of this because something looks slightly off from the norm.

America historically has had hostility towards anything resembling "the left" or "socialism", and I doubt that'll ever change. But it sure feels like we're at a point where you just feel powerless to convince politicians to bend from their stance or reject the party mandate in favor of common sense.

I have to agree. What I see today is that the conservative and ultra-right wing are actually making progress in their social and political aims by being antagonistic with government and media while the left and liberals are making little progress cooperating. Of course, when the civil rights, labor rights, anti-war and environmental concerns were led by people who took a more actively antagonistic stance organizing against the government and mainstream, we seemed to make more progress.

[Mister Mets]

My apologies for the confusion then. I just wasn't clear how you seemed unsure that the Epstein situation wasn't trafficking when Maxwell was found guilty of the following:

Count one: Conspiracy to entice a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts
Count three: Conspiracy to transport a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity
Count four: Transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity

He was charged for similar crimes before he died and since Maxwell worked for him, made arrangements for him, and used his planes to transport victims as the trial showed, it's clear trafficking is what they were doing. The big question now is who all were they flying and delivering the victims to.

But I agree with the second part of your post in that it's likely to be much more difficult to get those names revealed because they are high profile.

It does remain entirely possible that the girls were chartered mainly for Epstein, and that his wealth comes from elsewhere. This is a lot we don't know.

It's certainly a good idea to consider the possibilities. It's a stretch to make clear pronouncements at this point.

The unfortune part of this hodgepodge of laws and definitions is that like the term "underage girls" means many things to different people and cultures even modern ones and is conflated with child porn. The still famous case of begs all kinds of review of community standard taking precedence a relative standard that most of us walk around with. Personally I don't see the crime of girls finding their way into such situations and being covered by some sort of constructed immunity.

"Young girls" just means females under 18, even if it is an imprecise term that might imply something else. I really don't know any other way to say it.

"Females under 18" is accurate, but too clinical. "Teenagers" would include young women past the age of consent.

The tougher part of this is that there is no reason to trust either side to stick to the bargain. Conservative politicians that do not believe global warming is a serious problem will use the same tactics to get around enforcing restrictions that they've used to get around all other environmental protections. Liberal politicians that believe abortion is a central reproductive right for all women will use similar tactics to get around restrictions on abortion procedures.

On top of this, here in the USA, I don't really believe that the Democratic Party is all that committed to fighting climate change OR that any of the drastic solutions would (a.) actually reverse anything, (b.) not cause even worse environmental and social problems or (c.) even get passed into law even if the Democrats retained control of Congress. I just don't have any faith that any US politician holding office today has the will to face climate change OR that anyone funding a US politician or the majority of people that would put them into office have climate change and global warming at the top of their minds when voting. I have no doubt that a politician would lose more votes by compromising on abortion rights than they would win by prioritizing global warming reductions.

I think this will become even more true when Roe v. Wade is eventually overturned or completely neutralized. Again, the solution will not come from giving government more powers as that's exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. That should have been the lesson of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The government and military had all the power and intelligence they needed to prevent them, but when they proved themselves completely incompetent, they asked for more power and it led to two costly wars, a surveillance state violating individual privacy, as well as actual torture and murder that they were allowed to keep secret (and probably still commit).

We'll need to take more power and freedom for individuals to force the necessary changes.

It's a fair point that in any deal on political issues you'll probably find people trying to violate the spirit of it as soon as possible.

And they'll claim incidents in the past serve to justify this. On the right, conservatives will complain about how immigration reform didn't work in the past, that Democrats got the amnesty they wanted, but that the border was not secured. A common refrain is that we can't balance the budget because if Republicans agree to increase taxes, Democrats will refuse spending cuts. Democrats will claim that independent redistricting commissions will solve all problems of gerrymandering, and then some of them will try to trick the redistricting commission to get their preferred outcomes.

https://www.propublica.org/article/h...ing-commission

I'm sure people here can point to times they'll say the right did not honor the spirit of an agreement.

I don't know what the solution is.

I suspect that if either the Democratic or Republican party moderated a bit and took a stand against crappy and insane politicians, they could dominate for twenty years. There could be mechanisms to diminish the power of politicians who lie, or are careless about facts, but the parties choose not to do it.

Part of it is that the crazies and the liars have constituencies. Another part of it is that neither party wants to do what it takes to win with 55% of the vote. They think they'll be able to get more policies the base likes through with narrow wins, which diminished the ability to get important stuff done.

[JB]

It does remain entirely possible that the girls were chartered mainly for Epstein, and that his wealth comes from elsewhere. This is a lot we don't know.

It's certainly a good idea to consider the possibilities. It's a stretch to make clear pronouncements at this point.

The settlement agreement being unsealed next week should shed some light, as I believe the accuser of that case named several other people.

[JB]

Hillary Clinton has some things to say in an upcoming interview with MSNBC's Willie Geist.

Clinton: 'It is a time for some careful thinking about what wins elections'
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...thinking-about

Look, I’m all about having vigorous debate. I think it’s good, and it gives people a chance to be part of the process. But, at the end of the day it means nothing if we don’t have a Congress that will get things done, and we don’t have a White House that we can count on to be sane and sober and stable and productive.

[Kirby101]

Government cooperation would be nice, but government cooperation historically has been to maintain the interests contributing to the problems. Individual power is necessary to force the government to act, and what we need is the coercion of the government. I'd look back to the labor movement of the early 20th century in that it was government policies that supported unfair labor practices until collective action and even the threat of revolution coerced government action - same for civil rights.

However, what we've had since the 1970's is a serious diminishment of individual power to collectivize. There had never been an anti-war movement as large, organized and global as the one that formed against the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq and it had no effect on that conflict moving forward and continuing for decades. Here in the US, both conservatives and liberals have had periods where the people they vote for control all the branches of government and neither was able to actually provide anything their voters wanted because essentially the voters no longer matter -- or more importantly, can't do anything to force them to take action.

I get what you mean now, don't disagree.

[Kirby101]

I look at the reversal of fortunes having started around the Reagan administration when he effectively gutted the power of the employees by destroying union bargaining power, reinforcing "right to work" laws, and making the climate favorable to corporate raiders who would buy massive shares of stocks to gain control of companies only to destroy them once they made their money or outsourced the work productivity to other countries that had less restrictions to increase profit margins. Ever since, the political pendulum shifted firmly towards the right-of-center at most on many policies, which is why things such as raising the minimum wage or reinforcing basic voter rights are met with "Gee, that would be nice, but..." even amongst many Democrats. And it seems like many of the presidents elected after Reagan reflect either a desire to continue the status quo or fears that we may somehow break out of this because something looks slightly off from the norm.

America historically has had hostility towards anything resembling "the left" or "socialism", and I doubt that'll ever change. But it sure feels like we're at a point where you just feel powerless to convince politicians to bend from their stance or reject the party mandate in favor of common sense.

Not wrong either.

[Tami]

Has Ted Cruz always been this dumb?

Ted Cruz Confuses Washington With Western Australia, Is Widely Mocked

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is facing ridicule over a now-deleted tweet that mixed up the state of Washington in the U.S. with Western Australia, a state that is part of Australia.

The Republican had retweeted a post featuring a screenshot from the Facebook page of the government of Western Australia (WA Government) that appeared to advise a woman that dancing was not permitted at a private New Year's Eve party at her home. The original tweet did not mention Washington.

Cruz added his own comment criticizing Washington and Democrat-led states in general but he later deleted the tweet in question. By then, many social media users had seen the post and were mocking Cruz for the error.

Cruz had tweeted: "Blue-state Dems are power-drunk authoritarian kill-joys. Washington State: NO DANCING ALLOWED!!! Any rational & free citizen: Piss off."

The WA Government's Facebook page had replied to a woman who had asked if she was allowed to hold a party for New Year's Eve.

Their reply said that "masks are not required at private residences. Dancing is strictly not permitted."

Democratic Representative Eric Swalwell pointed out the mistake before the tweet was deleted. He wrote: "Hey Ted, WA is Western Australia. But cool tweet."

[GindyPosts]

Has Ted Cruz always been this dumb?

Ted Cruz Confuses Washington With Western Australia, Is Widely Mocked

Ted Cruz has always been a dumb son of a bitch, but he's never going away because even if they hate him so much, Republicans would rather have a dumb son of a bitch than a Democrat in his seat.

[AnakinFlair]

Ted Cruz has always been a dumb son of a bitch, but he's never going away because even if they hate him so much, Republicans would rather have a dumb son of a bitch than a Democrat in his seat.

That's true for a lot of Republicans.

[Tami]

‘Slow-motion insurrection’: How GOP seizes election power

In the weeks leading up to the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, a handful of Americans — well-known politicians, obscure local bureaucrats — stood up to block then-President Donald Trump’s unprecedented attempt to overturn a free and fair vote of the American people.

In the year since, Trump-aligned Republicans have worked to clear the path for next time.

In battleground states and beyond, Republicans are taking hold of the once-overlooked machinery of elections. While the effort is incomplete and uneven, outside experts on democracy and Democrats are sounding alarms, warning that the United States is witnessing a “slow-motion insurrection” with a better chance of success than Trump’s failed power grab last year.

They point to a mounting list of evidence: Several candidates who deny Trump’s loss are running for offices that could have a key role in the election of the next president in 2024. In Michigan, the Republican Party is restocking members of obscure local boards that could block approval of an election. In Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, the GOP-controlled legislatures are backing open-ended “reviews” of the 2020 election, modeled on a deeply flawed look-back in Arizona. The efforts are poised to fuel disinformation and anger about the 2020 results for years to come.