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

[hyped78]

On puberty blockers in the UK, some of the posts here are laughably poorly informed. The decision by the NHS has been taken based on an independent medical review that has been going on since 2020, that includes an Assurance Group that’s a who’s who of experts. That review published an interim report a couple of years ago and will soon publish its full report.

This is the Guardian’s view on the interim report:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e_iOSApp_Other

I don’t see Labour criticizing the NHS decision, by the way. On the contrary, a few MPs who’ve spoken out actually support it.

NHS resources: https://www.england.nhs.uk/publicati...sing-hormones/

[hyped78]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/26/trum...ac-merger.html

How does Trump keep getting away with these “lifelines”?! Who on their right frame of mind would make an investment decision to spend money on Truth Social?!

[Tami]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/26/trum...ac-merger.html

How does Trump keep getting away with these “lifelines”?! Who on their right frame of mind would make an investment decision to spend money on Truth Social?!

Just like every other venture Trump has tried, this one too will die a slow death. Only reason for interest is for the the chance to interact with Trump. Eventually the novelty will wear off.

[hyped78]

Just like every other venture Trump has tried, this one too will die a slow death. Only reason for interest is for the the chance to interact with Trump. Eventually the novelty will wear off.

But the issue is the money that he will get from this in e.g. 6 months, that’s what annoys me.

[ed2962]

RFK announced his VP pick. Nicole Shanahan ( I hadn't heard of her before )...

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/liv...ml?ref=mc.news

[hyped78]

RFK announced his VP pick. Nicole Shanahan ( I hadn't heard of her before )...

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/liv...ml?ref=mc.news

I read an article about her the other day. She was previously a Democrat and was married to one of the founders of Google, Sergey Brin

[ed2962]

Since the Captain of the boat in Baltimore is white and Ukrainian, certain folks on social media have decided to instead hurl blame and the DEI hire accusations at the black mayor. It's like, just admit you want to call someone the N-word...

[ed2962]

I read an article about her the other day. She was previously a Democrat and was married to one of the founders of Google, Sergey Brin

So far, I haven't seen any red flags. ( There's rumor that she had an affair with Elon Musk, but...whatever. )

I think some folks are afraid RFK will be a spoiler for Biden but I think it'll go the other way. A few months ago he was making the rounds on conservative media. And with all his anti-fax stuff and other conspiracy theories, he's more likely to pull votes from the segments of the right wing.

[AnakinFlair]

Just like every other venture Trump has tried, this one too will die a slow death. Only reason for interest is for the the chance to interact with Trump. Eventually the novelty will wear off.

I'm not sure it it will be a slow death. Truth Social had never had a strong ad revenue stream, and it pretty much only exists for Trump to vomit his latest word salad onto the ether. Plus, with Trump's very real need of cash, I expect as soon as he's able, he'll start dumping his stock, then let the whole thing collapse.

So they had the hearing on Mifepristone today at the Supreme Court. Alito and Thomas seem ready to bust out the Comstock Act to ban it nationwide, because of course they are. But it's got me wondering...

Trump is currently running on a platform of a 15 week total abortion ban across the nation. The Republicans are all 'Pro-Life', blah-blah-blah. Say the Supreme Court actually does ban the drug, further curtailing a women's rights over her own body. While it would be horrible, and I hope it doesn't happen, it could be the greatest gift to Democrats in an election year. "Help give the Democrats the majority, and we can codify Roe into law.'

It's actually something I wonder if some of the more conservatives Justices will be thinking about while making their decision. It shouldn't be, but then again this case should never have been accepted by the Supreme Court at all.

[AnakinFlair]

So far, I haven't seen any red flags. ( There's rumor that she had an affair with Elon Musk, but...whatever. )

I think some folks are afraid RFK will be a spoiler for Biden but I think it'll go the other way. A few months ago he was making the rounds on conservative media. And with all his anti-fax stuff and other conspiracy theories, he's more likely to pull votes from the segments of the right wing.

I was watching an interview with another Kennedy last night; she mentioned that from polls she's seen, RFK Jr would siphon 70% from Biden, and 30% from Trump. Not sure if that's accurate or not.

I also just watched a clip from Fox or Newsmax where they are blaming the bridge collapse on diversity, and it was as dumb hearing it as it was reading about it. They were also blaming it on the open border, because the border is such an issue.... in BALTIMORE.

[kidfresh512]

They should ask her if she is fine with getting a check from the same folks who employ Nicole Wallace and Jim Cramer...

Nicole Wallace is not an election denier. Rachel's segment was very pointed and very clear about the outrage and what exactly Ronna participated in. They aren't against her just because she is GOP. They are against her because she helped Trump try to stop the Michigan certification.

Lawrence was after Maddow and he went on to point out how the media didn't accept the people closest to Nixons crimes in his administration except the speechwriters who weren't "close to the crime". That was actually a good segment again showing you dont just let these people who were right there crime adjacent.

They were actually good segments making it perfectly clear the difference. They were really angry that their bosses were using the reputations of the actual journalists at the NBC networks who earned their reputations to wash the stink off this cow.

[Mister Mets]

And then you proceed to address none of the behaviors brought up, while attempting to gaslight presenting me as being "angry & evasive".

When I was discussing your behavior in the post you started replying to - I'm not limiting it to me. The posters I can name from memory who you've at least mischaracterized their arguments (And/or Played Dumb, Sealioned, Gaslit, etc) enough for them to comment on it in the past are thwhtGuardian, WBE, WPP, Tendrin, Kirby101, babyblob, Catlady in training, zinderel, CaptainEurope, aja_christopher, Tami, Adam Allen, and others that have faded from my memory for whatever reason (Stopped interacting with you, stopped posting, etc.). I apologize to each of you if you don't want me bringing you up (As well as to any who think they should be included) , but I'm trying to make a point about how often this behavior is engaged in. Behaving in the ways I've discussed with others is very rude & insulting to them. That's not getting into how many of them you've lied about and claimed that them pointing out where you won't accept/post evidence or are factually wrong and won't accept it is them attacking you unfairly (More than 2).

In addition, this behavior is shown on a multitude of subjects: Transphobia in the GoP, to Anti-LGBTQ+ bigotry in the GoP, Racism in the GoP, The acceptance of lies and liars in the GoP, what the open embrace of Trump & the politicians who do what he tells them to do means for the GoP, the attacks upon elections & voting by the GoP, the 'moderate' status of voting for Ron DeSantis, the dangers of bribing SCOTUS Justices, the dangers of how much Violence is being accepted by the GoP, the dangers of conservatives vilifying CRT/DEI/Pride Week Education/Teachers/Scientists/Reporters/Immigrants/More, the dangers of the promotion of the Great Replacement Theory by conservatives, and FAR more.

I could go on, but this is already a gish gallop by necessity. Now, back to The Week - Lots of mischaracterization, lies, and gaslighting going on to avoid acknowledging the simple fact that the study The Week brought up didn't say what they said it didd, and that they haven't cited any other studies/theories (That you love to bring up to confuse the issue) other than the one which specifically doesn't come close to "1-in-20" unless you add in results that don't qualify and round up where you shouldn't if you want to remain factual.

While you technically replied to these posts, you've never actually refuted what's contained in them:



And as Tendrin also noted how this was all a lie when the Study was actually posted years ago, I'm not the only one to notice. Nor have I ever claimed to be, but it seems suspicious to frame it like I am out of some self-importance/whatever.

To sum it up again:

There are two possibilities. Either people don't like me because they're partisan and would prefer this thread to be a Democratic party appreciation thread or they don't like me because I'm uniquely obnoxious. The latter could easily be demonstrated if there is a regular poster who either shares my views or is to my right (or more likely to vote for Republicans) and is treated more warmly.

In the American political context, I'm not that right-leaning. I didn't vote for Trump in 2016, voted for Biden in 2020 and will probably vote for him in 2024. But if there's anyone who intends to support Republicans in the future who is a regular poster, you can point him or her out. Otherwise, the problem may be that there are a handful of people here who don't like political disagreement, especially when it's not from the left, and everything else is pretext. There is the possibility that the regulars have made this thread toxic and unwelcoming to the people considering voting for Trump, who according to polls seem to outnumber people like us who would rather vote for Biden.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ident-general/

When I make comments about previous disputes, I do try to provide links for a variety of reasons. I'd like others to make their own decision on the information rather than to rely on my interpretation.

At times you have been evasive. I remembered a stretch of posts when it was memes.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6318038

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6318503

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6318561

If you want to say it was a bad day and it's not representative, I understand, but it was annoying at the time. I was trying to figure your argument out and I was not the only who was confused.

A misunderstanding I seemed to have (and I wasn't the only one) was that I thought you weren't counting people who were agender, nonbinary, genderfluid, etc. as trans. The obvious implication would be that any law to protect the rights of people who are transgender would not apply to people who identify as genderfluid. My current understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you believed a writer's description of a surge in chromosomal females (or individuals who were assigned female at birth) identifying as trans going from 1 in 2,000 to in 1 in 20 was inaccurate because the study quoted didn't explicitly say whether people who were nonbinary, agender, genderfluid, etc. were raised as girls so that it is possible that a disproportionate number (or even all of them) were chromosomal males (XY chromosomes) were raised as boys. Other studies suggested that chromosomal females (XX chromosomes) are more likely to identify in various categories like agender or genderfluid than chromosomal males, and it seems like a basic thing a reporter could factcheck, since we're not arguing about the difference between 1 in 40 and 1 in 20, but whether it counts as a surge from 1 in 2,000- I think in this context 1 in 100 would count as a surge, although it did seem the numbers were higher in this particular setting.

I still don't think the writer for The Week lied, and it certainly isn't so obvious to merit bringing up years later as an example that somebody's opinion can't be trusted.

[Mister Mets]

I'm not sure it it will be a slow death. Truth Social had never had a strong ad revenue stream, and it pretty much only exists for Trump to vomit his latest word salad onto the ether. Plus, with Trump's very real need of cash, I expect as soon as he's able, he'll start dumping his stock, then let the whole thing collapse.

So they had the hearing on Mifepristone today at the Supreme Court. Alito and Thomas seem ready to bust out the Comstock Act to ban it nationwide, because of course they are. But it's got me wondering...

Trump is currently running on a platform of a 15 week total abortion ban across the nation. The Republicans are all 'Pro-Life', blah-blah-blah. Say the Supreme Court actually does ban the drug, further curtailing a women's rights over her own body. While it would be horrible, and I hope it doesn't happen, it could be the greatest gift to Democrats in an election year. "Help give the Democrats the majority, and we can codify Roe into law.'

It's actually something I wonder if some of the more conservatives Justices will be thinking about while making their decision. It shouldn't be, but then again this case should never have been accepted by the Supreme Court at all.

A big factor in the stock price will be whether he wins in November. I prefer he doesn't.

He is limited in his ability to sell stock quickly. From various articles, it seems he won't be able to sell shares for a few months, although I don't know how much that'll matter- anyone determining whether to loan him money will look at the current valuation and later expectations, although he may find a way to screw it up.

It seems to be a meme stock, but that may be enough to help.

So far, I haven't seen any red flags. ( There's rumor that she had an affair with Elon Musk, but...whatever. )

I think some folks are afraid RFK will be a spoiler for Biden but I think it'll go the other way. A few months ago he was making the rounds on conservative media. And with all his anti-fax stuff and other conspiracy theories, he's more likely to pull votes from the segments of the right wing.

This RFK may appeal to people who want an outsider, and that's not necessarily the people who like a guy who was elected to the Senate more than 50 years ago. (Note- I prefer Biden to Trump or RFK, whose prominent role in public office ended after he got fired from a prosecutor's staff for being a drug fiend.)

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/26/trum...ac-merger.html

How does Trump keep getting away with these “lifelines”?! Who on their right frame of mind would make an investment decision to spend money on Truth Social?!

It's the MAGA version of Gamestonk.

They should ask her if she is fine with getting a check from the same folks who employ Nicole Wallace and Jim Cramer...

There are some interesting questions here.

One thing that's relevant to various conversations here are distinctions between rules and discretion. A very quick summary is that some people want concrete rules and others want the discretion to make decisions within larger parameters. A problem for NBC is that they would have to explain clearly and unambiguously what makes her worse than all of the RNC/ DNC Chairman who went on to media jobs. There's an argument, but it should be made clearly.

And part of how they explain it sucks. Chuck Todd claimed that she was hurting existing media credibility, but the problem is the lack of it.

If the claim is that she crossed the line with election denialism, that makes sense, but clear standards should be clarified.

Is Mulvaney still working for CBS?

Yeah, it worked out well for him.

[numberthirty]

...

There are some interesting questions here.

One thing that's relevant to various conversations here are distinctions between rules and discretion. A very quick summary is that some people want concrete rules and others want the discretion to make decisions within larger parameters. A problem for NBC is that they would have to explain clearly and unambiguously what makes her worse than all of the RNC/ DNC Chairman who went on to media jobs. There's an argument, but it should be made clearly.

And part of how they explain it sucks. Chuck Todd claimed that she was hurting existing media credibility, but the problem is the lack of it.

If the claim is that she crossed the line with election denialism, that makes sense, but clear standards should be clarified.

...

Versus what?

Coming from an administration whose lies actually did put untold numbers of innocent civilians in the ground?

Talking about that US jobs should go to Mexico?

[numberthirty]

Never mind if someone actually wants to level with themselves about exactly where "Drill Baby Drill" came from...