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

[Tami]

Conservatives bash ‘uniparty’ Republicans in push to dissuade bipartisanship

WASHINGTON — An empowered faction of Donald Trump-aligned Republicans is seeking to redefine dealmaking as an insult by deploying the term “uniparty” to attack colleagues who work with Democrats and strike deals that fall short of what their base wants.

The growing use of the word among the GOP’s ascendant culture warriors represents an effort by conservative lawmakers, activists and commentators to disparage bipartisan agreements on matters that have broad support in Congress like government funding, infrastructure spending and aid for U.S. allies like Ukraine.

Rep. Bob Good, R-Va., chair of the far-right Freedom Caucus, called the recent House passage of a bill to avert a partial government shutdown an example of a “uniparty vote,” with Republicans who “talk about spending cuts and talk about fiscal responsibility” but ultimately support compromise spending measures.

“The uniparty is when the rubber meets the road and Republicans and Democrats join hands to stick it to the American people,” Good told NBC News.

No, it's when Republicans who know they have a job to do in managing the government actually try to do it even if it means brokering deals with Democrats.

The crazy wing of the Republican party don't care one iota about keeping the government functional and working for all Americans.

[Jack Dracula]

Conservatives bash ‘uniparty’ Republicans in push to dissuade bipartisanship



No, it's when Republicans who know they have a job to do in managing the government actually try to do it even if it means brokering deals with Democrats.

The crazy wing of the Republican party don't care one iota about keeping the government functional and working for all Americans.

Because a non-functioning, innefectual government works in Trump's favor.
Populists seeking office often campaign on the argument that the government is broken and that they are the only ones who can fix it.

[Panfoot]

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news...nouns-42014864

A new bill introduced in the Missouri House would force teachers to register as sex offenders if they use the names and pronouns of transgender children or otherwise support them and their identity.

HB2885, filed on Thursday, February 29 by state Representative Jamie Gragg (R-Ozark), would make it a Class E felony for teachers or school counselors to aid the “social transition” of a child — meaning that a teacher "provides support, regardless of whether the support is material, information, or other resources to a child regarding social transition."

The bill defines "social transition" as:

“The process by which an individual adopts the name, pronouns, and gender expression, such as clothing or haircuts, that match the individual's gender identity and not the gender assumed by the individual's sex at birth.”

[Panfoot]

Conservatives bash ‘uniparty’ Republicans in push to dissuade bipartisanship



No, it's when Republicans who know they have a job to do in managing the government actually try to do it even if it means brokering deals with Democrats.

The crazy wing of the Republican party don't care one iota about keeping the government functional and working for all Americans.

I feel like referring to the Freedom Caucus as the "crazy wing" of the Republican party gives the rest of them too much credit, they want a lot of the same stuff the rest just know they have to be a little more subtle about it.

[CaptainEurope]

Because a non-functioning, innefectual government works in Trump's favor.
Populists seeking office often campaign on the argument that the government is broken and that they are the only ones who can fix it.

And Republican voters were brainwashed going back to Reagan into believing that the best the government can do is do nothing and cut taxes.

[thwhtGuardian]

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news...nouns-42014864

I hope this bill dies on the floor, but the very fact that it was even introduced is just sickening.

[Deathstroke]

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news...nouns-42014864

And they wonder why so many people are leaving the teaching profession.

The republican party really is the American Taliban.

[Jack Dracula]

And Republican voters were brainwashed going back to Reagan into believing that the best the government can do is do nothing and cut taxes.

I couldn't agree more. Most of our current political problems originated with Reagan's administration.

[zinderel]

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news...nouns-42014864

It’s ok. We’re all just over reacting. Republicans are trying to protect children from the trans agenda to take away their first orgasms and turn them into cats. No one’s trying to erase trans people from existence, ESPECIALLY not the GOP, who loves and values ALL Americans…

[Malvolio]

I couldn't agree more. Most of our current political problems originated with Reagan's administration.

They've spent over 40 years telling us that government can't do anything right and that we should leave everything to the private sector. Then they get into power and do everything they can to fulfill that prophecy.

[CaptainEurope]

They've spent over 40 years telling us that government can't do anything right and that we should leave everything to the private sector. Then they get into power and do everything they can to fulfill that prophecy.

... and then the private sector fucks things up.

[CaptainEurope]

Haley as a holdout could still be more than a speed bump for Trump - NPR

History shows that when the major party nominees for president have not cleared the field of notable challengers before summer, they tend to lose in the fall.
The most recent example was Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Haley may be no more than an annoyance to Trump at this point and a forgotten footnote once she drops out. But every week she remains in the running she poses a problem.

[Mister Mets]

Regarding the Gina Carano situation and the greater subject of free speech and bias, as a liberal, I find her remarks and attitudes abhorrent and/ or ignorant as in lacking facts and information. But that's standard among conservatives all the way up to their chief who can't admit he lost. But there are liberals who have repeatedly compared Trump to Hitler. Whether you think that's valid or not, there are no consequences for it. As a liberal, I realize that someone punching up (Pascal criticizing Trump) is very different than someone punching down (Carano to an extremely marginalized group). But it is clear that average and poor conservatives perceive themselves as being punched down at by biased and elitist government and media.

I don't think any conservative pressure is going to change Disney's policies. But I see them having at least a small affect. There's Shane Gillis hosting SNL regardless of numerous protests about it, with SNL stating that they are having him return regardless to promote a diversity of opinions. The show got low ratings overall but landed in the top 25% this season in the 18-49 years old category, which was the one they most wanted to improve. A lot of that was certainly how much publicity the conflict about it got, with people tuning in to see what all of the yelling was about.

https://latenighter.com/news/saturda...18-49-ratings/

It doesn't help that things are moving so fast culturally that there are things being normalized that the majority of the country probably thinks is ridiculous regardless of what they can openly say on social media or what they have to adhere to officially at work.

In other words, it's one of those times you don't want to live in but have to do your best with.

One issue with looking at things as a matter of punching down is its hard to codify that. It's something that mainly works if people in charge follow a particular norm.

If you concede that they are not the same then what is the point of equating the treatment of people who support open borders by the democratic party with the way republicans are unwilling to criticize fascism in their ranks?

I didn't.

The open borders thing got brought up by others, who started with the claim that it is outrageous to suggest that people who support open borders are in good standing in the Democratic party, and seem to have shifted to a new claim that obviously good and decent people can support open borders, which I haven't disputed.

It's a motte and bailey.

What is also sad is that I think you made some good points in your first post about Middle East, but many people might now completely dismiss it because then you follow with it a completely uninformed post about trans people that has many obvious red flags. So I can see that anyone can think that you are confident enough to post about something you obviously don't understand and haven't tried to understand.

He's the same guy he always was.

Didn't you support Biden as well?

I will assure you that a lot of people here aren't traditionally left-leaning. A number of us here have supported GOP candidates in the past (my support was really based on my religious beliefs).

It's the lunacy of pushing candidates like Trump and some odd politics that's made folks appear left-leaning. Particularly in recent years when it seems the GOP has been openly embracing folks that are very problematic.

EDIT: As I got older and understand certain issues better, I became a lot more tolerant of people that are different from me.

I voted for Biden, and will likely do so again in November is Trump is the main alternative, although I'm not going to pretend my views (broadly Republican, anti-Trump) are common among the electorate.

It's more relevant who people are willing to vote for now. If someone's a straight-ticket Democrat at the moment, that's a reflection of their political beliefs while they're posting on the forum.

People may have different reasons for being straight-ticket Democrats, but discussions among them are still going to fall into traps of blind spots, groupthink and some intolerance of different views.

They absolutely do not benefit from your "transparency". More often than not in the past when it was legal it led to invasion of privacy, discrimination, denial of equal opportunities, and retaliation or blacklisting.

There is zero benefit for the employee.

I wish I could say I was surprised that you'd be anti-worker on this very basic level, but sadly it lines up with a lot of your other really bad takes.

So I'm anti-worker, because I think if someone loses their livelihood, they should be able to expect an explanation?

My sense of it is that employers use opaqueness in ways that benefit themselves more than employees, covering up their own misdeeds and hiding information that would allow employees to negotiate.

[Mister Mets]

I specifically said, "let's not dismiss..."

Is that the intent, then? I mean, I fully get that the thread is full of people further to the left than you, but that doesn't make everyone left-wingers. I'm pretty sure I am further left than many posters here ... by your standards, shouldn't this allow me to declare everyone is right-wing?

And are you reading your own links? Or just assuming I wouldn't? You didn't have "several stories" showing some kind of "systemic failure" in the hospital.

You got exactly one story from a respected news source, that at least treated her with kid gloves. That's it, though. No "several stories" with "serious problems".

Even all this time later, what is the biggest "systemic issue" you can try to pull out of the long-ass story, to try to suggest there was any validty to her claims? This bit:



So first, importantly, the bit about "tension in the field" is commentary. The pondering about root cause or "transient consequence" is from the writer of the article. So cool they have an opinion, but they shouldn't try to speak for experts, which is how their wording kind of frames their personal opinion.

Besides that, the big "systemic issue" that you're claiming validates her whistleblower status is that ... therapists refer out?

Really? Because that is just a thing that happens normally, all the time, every day, for lots of reasons, in the field of mental health. Now, in this particular case, the story is saying the clinic referred to external therapists because they could not handle the demand. I mean, okay -- possible. That the external therapists would have less experience with gender issues than the ones working in the freaking gender clinic? Yeah, that would be expected.

As far as the doctors prescribing meds to patients whose medical histories had "red flags"? Yeah, they would not have been referred to therapists for medical evaluations. I mean, you do realize there are rules guiding licensed people, right? Like, you can't and won't perform things you are not qualified to do?

The therapists evaluated what they were qualified for, even if they were not super experienced in it. If the medical doctor then decided to prescribe medications, with awareness of the patient's medical history -- dunno, Mets, personally I'm inclined to trust those kids' doctors, over the vaguely insinuating tone of the article's writer?

Particularly because, again -- there are all kinds of laws and agencies involved that regulate the practice of medicine, and therapy, and everything involved in gender care. Mets, none of those people have been found guilty of legal or ethical wrongdoing. Not by any investigating agency or media or anyone, besides "whistleblower" Jamie Reed.

Look, if you want to say that you personally choose to believe her over all the other professionals involved -- because they are all in obedience or allegiance to some "agenda", no doubt -- just say that.

I don't know that that makes her a whistleblower, still. But if you want to believe her, okay. Just own that for what it is, I guess.

It's not dismissing anyone to point out political leanings; the main question is whether I'm right on the facts.

We should be able to assess political leans independent of our views. Even if you're to the left of most of the board, you should have a basic understanding of whether you're to the left of most people; if so, in an ideologically diverse forum you should be to the left of most of the people.

There are some nuances. A comic book forum isn't necessarily representative of the larger population, though presumably there would be Trump supporters and Republicans.

The Times article was extensive, and includes multiple examples. If there are serious errors in a piece about a sensitive topic, it would seem a good opportunity for another media organization to demonstrate that the Times got it wrong, especially if it's that obvious. I'm going with the information I have now. If something new comes out, I can reevaluate.

Looking at your specific criticism of the piece, the comments about "tension in the field" seem to be an accurate summary of the feelings of international practitioners, and the author backed it up with a link.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...otocol/673890/

The problem wasn't that patients were sent to external therapists, but that those therapists had little experience with gender issues. I don't think I've mentioned the standard of legal wrongdoing, partially because changes occur so quickly it takes a while for the law to catch up (there would also be plenty of situations where you may believe that the law is too strict, so legal wrongdoing wouldn't be a standard you'd care for in that case.)

Two other systemic problems were the lack of studies tracking how patients fare in the long term, and limited support for dissatisfied patients.

The Times? Spread transphobic allegations with misleading characterization and slanted opinions?

NOOOOOo, YOU DON'T SAY

So basically, nothing has come out that seriously validates anything Jamie Reed said, but Mets just Wants To Believe.

I get that you think that the New York Times favors the conservatives too much on this issue, but that is a fringe position.

Also, did the article's wording try to make it sound somehow shady, that patients who stopped coming to the clinic stopped getting services from the clinic?

How else is it supposed to work? You know, I work at a hospital, and we do everything we can for our patients while they're with us -- but we are an inpatient clinic, so of course we can't support people who are no longer our patients.

Yeah, of course case workers do as best they can to find/arrange any available services that can support in-home or in the community ... but hey, turns out mental health services are pretty limited. I mean, if you want to have a conversation about that problem, I'm all in.

"Pediatric gender medicine is a nascent specialty, and few studies have tracked how patients fare in the long term."

Right, so ... there are few long term studies on a new, specialized field? Honestly, how is the article trying to make that sound shady?

Even this article had nothing to support her, they just did everything they could to try.

We don't know if the people who stopped identifying as transgender were satisfied with their overall level of care, and the way they were guided to more appropriate facilities. If the Times piece is wrong in the implication, that's something for another journalist to investigate.

[Adam Allen]

Respect. Seriously.