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

[Catlady in training]

Does that mean if I say it a third time I will resurrect the Ghost of Ronald Reagan?

I've seen quite a few otherwise reasonable people in last two months bemoaning that we don't have Churchill now, or Reagan. People here see him mainly as someone who helped beat USSR.

shrug.

[Tami]

I've seen quite a few otherwise reasonable people in last two months bemoaning that we don't have Churchill now, or Reagan. People here see him mainly as someone who helped beat USSR.

shrug.

I could have said Nixon, maybe I should have. Reagan was the first one I thought of.

It wasn't meant as a commentary, I was just trying to be funny. Without much success. That's why I don't do stand up comedy.

[Catlady in training]

I could have said Nixon, maybe I should have. Reagan was the first one I thought of.

It wasn't meant as a commentary, I was just trying to be funny. Without much success. That's why I don't do stand up comedy.

Oh, no, it was funny, I laughed at it myself. I just found it funny in return that I have just recently seen some wishes for exactly that, so I thought I would share.

[Gray Lensman]

I could have said Nixon, maybe I should have. Reagan was the first one I thought of.

It wasn't meant as a commentary, I was just trying to be funny. Without much success. That's why I don't do stand up comedy.

Both Reagan and Nixon are not only too far to the left for today's Republican party, they also had too much integrity.

I know that sounds like hyperbole, but sadly, it is not.

[numberthirty]

As long as one side remains utterly insane, 'least worst' is sadly the best result we can hope for.

As long as folks refuse to so much as lean on the "Least Worst..." bunch?

One can bet the whole box of jellybeans on that "Least Worst..." is all we will ever get...

[numberthirty]

A centre right candidate gets 58 percent of the vote, with the far right candidate getting 42 percent of the vote (an increase on last time round, in spite of a clear association with Putin).

You really think that’s a good result?

Good result? :shrug:

Best possible result under the circumstances? I'd say so.

Today's "Best Possible..." has the potential to trip you up a few months from now.

Plenty of folks are talking about Biden's administration is putting in a "Best Possible..." effort.

That "Best Possible..." effort?

It may very well hand things over to the Republicans in the fall.

[Mister Mets]

One mention/local news radio/Illinois

I was in DC at the time and the main context of any discussion about this was about potential delays.

Today's "Best Possible..." has the potential to trip you up a few months from now.

Plenty of folks are talking about Biden's administration is putting in a "Best Possible..." effort.

That "Best Possible..." effort?

It may very well hand things over to the Republicans in the fall.

There is the flipside that going too far can get a backlash that results in Republican wins.

Moderates tend to outperform other candidates. One example would be Joe Biden outperforming Katie Porter in her congressional district.

[numberthirty]

...

There is the flipside that going too far can get a backlash that results in Republican wins.

Moderates tend to outperform other candidates. One example would be Joe Biden outperforming Katie Porter in her congressional district.

Politely?

That is most likely a non-issue if you get any results above "Well... This wasn't as bad as it could have been, and we put pretty lazy effort in..."

[numberthirty]

Past that?

Actually take Katie Porter off of the figurative leash, and let her actually get some of what she believes needs to happen done.

She'll run circles around Biden.

[Mister Mets]

Past that?

Actually take Katie Porter off of the figurative leash, and let her actually get some of what she believes needs to happen done.

She'll run circles around Biden.

What's the evidence for this?

When do we progressive candidates outperform fundamentals?

Utah Democrats back independent as US Senate candidate

I wrote about this as a potential approach a few days ago. It'll be interesting to see how it goes.

It could be a way for moderates to distance themselves from the national parties.

Better access to guns is likely a factor. However, I believe the amount of rural populations is likely the greatest factor.
https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/tool...0urban%20areas).

Suicide in Rural Areas
The suicide rate is nearly twice as great in the most rural areas of the U.S. compared to the most urban areas (18.9 per 100,000 people in rural areas vs. 13.2 per 100,000 people in urban areas). This difference in suicide rates between rural and urban areas has widened from 1999 to 2019, increasing 50% in rural areas compared to 31% in urban areas. In some states, the suicide rate in rural areas continues to rise whereas in urban areas it has remained stable (CDC, via WISQARS, as of July 21, 2021).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...record-numbers
A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggested that male farmers in 17 states took their lives at a rate two times higher than the general population in 2012 and 1.5 times higher in 2015. This, however, could be an underestimate, as the data collected skipped several major agricultural states, including Iowa. Rosmann and other experts add that the farmer suicide rate might be higher, because an unknown number of farmers disguise their suicides as farm accidents.

Not a lot of political advocacy for farmers in the United States and they are generally hardest hit by any policy changes whether economic or social.

Also, of course, these same populations suffered and continue to suffer greatly under the opioid epidemic as well as other drug problems like meth addiction and alcoholism.

Guns does seem to be the main difference.

A major statistic for suicide risk is access to firearms.

Areas with lower population density tend to have greater legal access to guns, and lower population density is basically a proxy for whether an area is Republican-leaning.

[numberthirty]

What's the evidence for this?

When do we progressive candidates outperform fundamentals?

Once they are finally allowed to accomplish some things without someone like Pelosi saying "But, Bro... Bro... We are CAPITALISTS!!!..." while progressives are attempting to get incredibly basic "Might establish a small amount of trust in government..." things done.

[Malvolio]

As long as folks refuse to so much as lean on the "Least Worst..." bunch?

One can bet the whole box of jellybeans on that "Least Worst..." is all we will ever get...

Well, of course we should lean on them. But we have to be careful how hard we lean. You can say that it shouldn't work that way all you want, but the reality of human nature is that if you lean on someone too hard, they will become resentful, even if they consider you a friend. There are ways of being persuasive without being a know-it-all about it.

[numberthirty]

Well, of course we should lean on them. But we have to be careful how hard we lean. You can say that it shouldn't work that way all you want, but the reality of human nature is that if you lean on someone too hard, they will become resentful, even if they consider you a friend. There are ways of being persuasive without being a know-it-all about it.

"Business As Usual..." Democrats?

They are in it for themselves, and most likely already resent the voter.

Not seeing where leaning on them puts the voter into a worse position than the one that they are already in.

What?

"Business As Usual..." Dems won't feel any particular pressure to pass BBB?

That's already how things actually are. Not much to lose if that's how they wind up staying.

[Mister Mets]

Why is a week about respecting the LGBT among us something that must be opposed by anyone? Is there any evidence at all that these activities are being used to actively influence children to change their sexual preferences? I'm not even sure they should have one at first grade/well before puberty.

The question isn't whether a week of activities for kindergarteners to respect LGBT individuals is something that must be opposed by anyone, but about whether it is so obviously correct that no one should oppose it.

If reasonable people can oppose it, that changes the policy questions. It becomes possible for elected officials to say this is something that shouldn't be done in their jurisdiction.

As I've pointed out before, complaining about or refusing to support Trump when you defend or support those who support him does nothing and means nothing in the long run, but the goalpost here was congressional leadership. Have you criticized them even in a response more than once or twice since Obama was elected? Because from the shouted "You Lie!" and before there have been many elected folks on the GoP side to accuse those they disagree with directly of lying and insult them before/during/after. Far more than Nancy Pelosi, but it was her that got you so upset you had to post about it.

I've brought up stupid stuff done by Trump and Republicans. As most of the regulars on this thread are to the left, if Trump or another Republican says or does something dumb, it'll usually be brought up. But because of your media diets, things that can make Democrats look bad tend to not come up.

As a personal thing, many of my posts are when I'm trying to figure things out. With the Pelosi comments, I remain legitimately curious about the lack of reaction to something that I think should be seen as a bad thing, like a member of congressional leadership disparaging people with legitimate concerns.

I have no idea what this means, could you please clarify?

Controversy is more likely to result in multiple posts than agreement is likely to result in a lot of posts.

If something is so vile that everyone is in agreement that it was bad, there will be limited posts on the topic because there isn't much to say about it.

But if reasonable people can disagree, there may be an argument where some people make multiple posts on a topic.

And responding to your use of the word Girls I used Boys and then you went on about my word use instead and haven't brought up anything but mentions of this study which seems to be the only real thing that informs your opinion on young females transitioning at a rate FAR more than young males.

I completely sympathize with the difficulty of using proper pronouns in a discussion about people transitioning.

However my reference to "the number of students brought up as girls identifying as transgender" did not misgender anyone.

I haven't said that young females transition at a rate FAR more than young males. They might but I really haven't looked at the specific numbers. There is a significant and well-documented increase in the percentage of females who seek these services.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...e_UK_2009-2016

If you want more evidence, I'll be glad to provide it.

If anyone has contrary information, I'd love to see it.

There is one conservative view regarding CRT (the pervasive boogeyman that the guy who caused it to become mainstream has admitted they are trying to use as an umbrella to collect every liberal idea under to vilify and has been shown to spread misinformation about on many occasions) and that view is it's everywhere and influences decisions in most schools across the country. This is a view that you yourself have put forward and defended without any proof whatsoever when asked to provide it.

Another is regardless of whether they believe in Evolution or not, that children in school should be able to question it and claim that their religious beliefs trump evidence without any sort of actual study or proof. Regardless of whether a few older students might have put in the time to I'm fairly sure that any kids in elementary school were handed this argument by their parents to regurgitate at the teachers and that is wrong.

And there is the one coming out that any mention of LGBT in schools should be eliminated, which is becoming more and more popular despite it being clear bigotry and not being rallied against by good GoP voters/legislators/pundits who decide things based on their morals and object to folks like Trump.

On the proof question with CRT, I agreed with the specific goalpost that it influences decisions in most schools, although I also thought it was a low bar, the equivalent of saying that a Hollywood director is a fascist because he's been influenced by DW Griffith or Leni Riefenstahl. Most directors will be influenced by them in some way (including by experiencing work by people who were directly influenced) but it doesn't mean they're bad.

You might be trying to get at a different question on CRT. We do seem to have different understandings of it.

While I believe in evolution, my impression is that most Democrats agree that in most cases, it shouldn't affect someone's degree. They would believe that someone should still be able to get a high school diploma even if they think God created literally created the world in six days. The main exception may be individuals trying to get specific college degrees in order to get credentials to advocate for evolution, although that's a narrow situation.

There are multiple conservative views on all sorts of issues, just as how progressives don't all agree with one another on some contentious question.

[Mister Mets]

So the only reason a corporation changes its practices to the left is to appease "the woke mob?" Is that it? They couldn't possible be doing it because they realize that people on the left have money to spend, too? Shapiro is so full of ****, his nickname should be "Commode."

This doesn't seem to be a case where corporations are focusing on what's going to appeal most to customers, given the efforts by activists and progressives who work for the major companies to apply various pressure points to get policy changes outside of the democratic process.

It is acceptable in a democracy for someone to say that they will not provide their skills for a company that does not match their values, but this is a very different goalpost than whether decisions are made about appealing to consumers.

Once they are finally allowed to accomplish some things without someone like Pelosi saying "But, Bro... Bro... We are CAPITALISTS!!!..." while progressives are attempting to get incredibly basic "Might establish a small amount of trust in government..." things done.

Is your view that progressives are currently not that popular in the United States, but would be popular if they were to in a position to implement their policies?

This gets difficult since it requires electing a lot of people (a majority of likeminded legislators in addition to executives wherever relevant.)

This seems like a major leap of faith for a moderate member of Congress. There is also the question of whether the policies would be immediately popular, and whether unintended consequences could drive a backlash.

This doesn't help the forum's discussion of whether or not this account belongs to a bot.

Also, it shows a general lack of awareness for what actually is happening to real people, and the impact upon actual human lives.

Therefore, again, consistent with account.

Let's all please stop doing our part to spread misinformation, and insisting "it's over" while a new variant is on the horizon.

As he said in the post you replied to, he personally believes that the United States is abandoning restrictions too quickly. He's talking about his perception about how the public would react. He may be wrong on that, but that's a relevant topic in a political thread.

Time will tell. Your country is not called "Litigation Nation" for nothing.

Everybody on that plane entered into a contract with the airline under the assumption there would be masks on board. Some hated the idea, to some it was a comfort and possibly the only reason they took the risk. The airline chose to change the rules while people were trapped in the plane. If you don't see judges and juries taking umbrage with that, you've lived a sheltered life.

Some people will be outraged at the idea that they might go on an airplane with an expectation that they would all be required to wear masks, and then learn that it's not a requirement, as rules might change mid-flight.

I suspect people who disagree with you about whether lawsuits will be effective know about the things you're familiar with (America's reputation for litigiousness) but may consider two counter-responses.

The first is whether the lawsuits have merit. America may be litigious, but respectable judges won't allow a case to go forward if the legal argument is poor even if they sympathize with the plaintiffs.

The second is that a lot of people in America are anti-mask, and that's going to have implications. For a Civil trial that would become a proxy on how happy Americans are with less masking regulations, you are likely to end up with some antimaskers on the jury, and among relevant judges (especially if a verdict gets appealed.) It doesn't take much to prevent a case from going forward.

This is from 2019. Disney has ramped up spending for Republicans since 2010. Spending millions of dollars from 2010 to 2019 as this shows. Not only did this dummy not realize the comical failure ahead , he literally spited his own party. Disney pulling donations to Republicans will be a blow that DeSantis won't feel yet. But the party will ahead.

https://www.floridatrend.com/print/article/27473


Its like cooking the golden goose because they don't give you more golden eggs THAT MOMENT. Then waking up once you spend those eggs and now need more. But there is no more eggs coming because you screwed that. Those candidates in elections will need money , but the Disney pocketbook is GONE.

The donations aren't that important here. Disney is much more important for other reasons as a cultural institution, top travel destination and major employer.