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

[Iron Maiden]

I don’t pay rent but, yes I’m paying more for food and gas prices go up and down. I don’t hold Biden or Democrats in general responsible for that because I understand what things they have control over.

Exactly. The price of gas has been pretty good in my area. Right now it's at $2.90 but during the summer it got as low as $2.45. I don't find the price of groceries to be that high but then I don't eat a lot of meat.

[Adam Allen]

I don't know if the wikipedia entry changed recently, but that comment seems to be worded differently, especially if you see this as a potential excuse to target LBGTQA+ writers and artists at Marvel and DC.

It's specially about pornography. The quote from the foreword in the Wikipedia link reads...

Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children,

I checked the website, and it is explicitly mentioned in the project.

https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/p...p_FOREWORD.pdf

I don't think any definition of pornography will include Russell T Davies' Doctor Who, to give an example of mainstream work by queer talent with queer themes. It would certainly apply to heterosexual porn like the type created by Donald Trump's former mistresses, and arguably apply to topless photos of his wife for Max magazine back in 1995.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...gration-228295

I don't see this issue being a winner among the younger voters who are allegedly considering supporting Trump.

Unsurprising that you would be unconcerned by this, but what exactly is "transgender ideology"?

They immediately and explicitly define the "pornography" they want to eliminate as "propagation of transgender ideology". And to skyvolt's point, consider the romance of teenaged Wiccan and Hulkling, or even worse, Runaways Karolina Dean and Xavin? If "propagation of transgender ideology" is porn, underage queer characters who can literally change their gender, perfectly fine? Or is that "sexualization of children"?

Seriously, what is transgender ideology, that we should be so okay with it being made literally illegal, apparently punishable by imprisonment?

[numberthirty]

I don’t pay rent but, yes I’m paying more for food and gas prices go up and down. I don’t hold Biden or Democrats in general responsible for that because I understand what things they have control over.

Then you don't say anything like "Bidenomics..." or take credit when gas prices go down.

If you come right out and say "The Price Of A Gallon Of Gas Will Largely Be Dictated By The Market..."?

You won't be looking at the same kind of judgement as someone who comes out to take credit when prices are lower.

That is just "Basics 101..." reality.

If you are saying you have something to do with the price coming down?

It is not exactly far out for folks to think that you have something to do with it when they go up.

As for food and basics?

When it is up twenty percent more in under three years?

That is a clear issue. If you have no control over that? You should be telling folks that every single day. Not talking in terms of that "Bidenomics..." is solving a problem if you actually have very little leverage when it comes to that problem.

If you do that?

Of course folks will treat you like you are saying that.

Never mind folks that said issue is hitting harder than others.

[numberthirty]

Exactly. The price of gas has been pretty good in my area. Right now it's at $2.90 but during the summer it got as low as $2.45. I don't find the price of groceries to be that high but then I don't eat a lot of meat.

As far as fuel...

It was $2.89 at the close of 2022.

Never dropped below where it is now($2.69 at the one local place that runs cheap - where it just came down in December - The other local stations are all at about the same $2.89 where it was more than a year ago...)

Even with that one station running at about ten or twenty cents less a gallon, plenty of folks would have to burn the fuel to fill up there to try to save that ten or twenty cents a gallon.

[Totoro Man]

I hope Shlomo Sand’s book “Two people for one state? Rereading Zionism history”(!) will be widely spread. I listened to him on radio and I agree with him: the most desirable solution for Israel and Palestine is a bi-national state.

He admitted that he doesn’t see it in the near future, though…

a singular nation-state that incorporates both groups (probably through force and external pressure)? that sounds like something I pitched in Model United Nations back in high school that got me lectured at. (this was before the collapse of the Soviet Union).

I argued that Palestinians should give up the idea of their own sovereign nation and seek co-equal citizenship with Israel... which would then have to be enforced by international economic and military pressure. Palestinian refugees abroad would be given the option of repatriation or being granted full citizenship status in their current place of residence. however, they could be allowed to visit family and so on. (in some cases, they would probably be better off that way. because the massive influx of ALL the refugees would critically destablize the region). Palestinians would no longer be allowed to launch military uprisings, and military support for such uprisings would be punished.

my argument went that Palestinian refugees are treated in a similarly harsh manner to illegal migrant workers in the United States... and that any practical solution to the Palestinian problem could NOT ignore this reality.

to put it bluntly, a pan-American/European/Central Asian coalition would be needed to impose a tyrannical police state in order to enforce a peaceful coexistence where everybody was granted basic rights and privileges. because neither side would dream of doing that on their own! my argument was that this was necessary to transition Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan into new forms of nation states... and that it might be the only way to solve the Israel/Palestine conflict.

I was then told that in Model United Nations I was expected to carefully study the talking points of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and argue based on their public demands. I was emphatically not expected to try and propose a solution based on my own thoughts and readings. I complained, "but the things the PLO are demanding will never happen! Israel isn't going to bend on that stuff at all. and what would stop them from simply launching another war to exterminate Israel?"

so, yeah, that didn't go over well. but I was just a goofy high school student coming up with ideas. at least I got graded on participation instead of whether the teacher liked my ideas.

here's an interesting book:
Jerusalem Besieged: From Ancient Canaan to Modern Israel
by Eric H. Cline

it covers just about every siege in recorded history. it even spends time on the lesser jihads (where Arab and Muslim armies competed with each other over political and religious control of the city)

[skyvolt2000]

Unsurprising that you would be unconcerned by this, but what exactly is "transgender ideology"?

They immediately and explicitly define the "pornography" they want to eliminate as "propagation of transgender ideology". And to skyvolt's point, consider the romance of teenaged Wiccan and Hulkling, or even worse, Runaways Karolina Dean and Xavin? If "propagation of transgender ideology" is porn, underage queer characters who can literally change their gender, perfectly fine? Or is that "sexualization of children"?

Seriously, what is transgender ideology, that we should be so okay with it being made literally illegal, apparently punishable by imprisonment?

That is why I am asking-what qualifies.

Because we have seen books get banned for being "porn" and there was none of that in the book. Or CRT and there was NONE of it in the book.

Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children,

Okay..... so would the following be under this?

Netflix's Big Mouth? Where we have seen not just ADULT nudity but full frontal of KIDS. MIDDLE SCHOOL KIDS.
Or does it get a free pass since the main cast are NOT POC.

I don't think any definition of pornography will include Russell T Davies' Doctor Who, to give an example of mainstream work by queer talent with queer themes. It would certainly apply to heterosexual porn like the type created by Donald Trump's former mistresses, and arguably apply to topless photos of his wife for Max magazine back in 1995.

It's going to include Dr Who. since he (or they) are a black guy now.

And if it did include Stormy's stuff-that is still a $50-90 billion industry.

And it would affect oversea shows and movies where policies and behavior are different. Sailor Moon wouldn't be able to air over here nor the Power Rangers.

[Totoro Man]

The biggest roadblock against the popularity of electric cars is the one-two whammy of cost and infrastructure. Teslas and the like are just too damn expensive while the availability of charging stations are far and few inbetween. Until those issues are addressed, electric cars will remain more niche than mainstream.

agreed. I would go further and argue that electric cars will always remain niche/minority.

the cost and infrastructure are something that can't be ignored. they also can't be replicated adequately in every environment. I just don't see it working in low density severe arctic or desert conditions.

I read a fellow who pointed out that there is frequently a $20,000 difference in price between gas-powered cars and electric cars. he pointed out that this money could be used to drive anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 miles based on your mileage. not something most people take lightly when thinking about the costs of purchasing a car.

when I see people talking about how we're going to eliminate fossil fuels I keep thinking... are we going to get rid of the roughly 6,000 container ships that help sustain the global economy by carrying something like 90% of ALL CONSUMER GOODS? are these people going to tell me how we plan to replace that?

maybe we'll go back to using thousands of wind-powered cargo ships as in the pre-industrial era? the truth is, even experiments with new merchant vessels are still HYBRID machines that rely on both wind and fossil fuels.

https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/news-even...-2023-08-22_en

and the scary thing is that a lot of people think maritime shipping only accounts for roughly 3% of global warming emissions.

even if we outlawed private ownership of automobiles tomorrow, it is not possible to eliminate all fossil fuel usage.

[numberthirty]

There is also this when it comes to EVs...

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/28/evs...afety-problems

EVs are much heavier than gas vehicles, and that's posing safety problems

[Jack Dracula]

Then you don't say anything like "Bidenomics..." or take credit when gas prices go down.

If you come right out and say "The Price Of A Gallon Of Gas Will Largely Be Dictated By The Market..."?

You won't be looking at the same kind of judgement as someone who comes out to take credit when prices are lower.

That is just "Basics 101..." reality.

If you are saying you have something to do with the price coming down?

It is not exactly far out for folks to think that you have something to do with it when they go up.

As for food and basics?

When it is up twenty percent more in under three years?

That is a clear issue. If you have no control over that? You should be telling folks that every single day. Not talking in terms of that "Bidenomics..." is solving a problem if you actually have very little leverage when it comes to that problem.

If you do that?

Of course folks will treat you like you are saying that.

Never mind folks that said issue is hitting harder than others.

You have a problem with Biden’s administration taking credit when circumstances beyond their control lend them an apparent win.
I don’t because any positive for democrats helps keep Republicans out of office and may stave off a likely autocracy. Your problem may be due to some misbegotten sense of fairness on your part. Fairness has never had a place in real life or politics.
A flaw in your thinking is that if Bidens administration takes credit for positive changes due to their policies they must also accept a degree of blame for circumstances beyond their control.

[numberthirty]

You have a problem with Biden’s administration taking credit when circumstances beyond their control lend them an apparent win.
I don’t because any positive for democrats helps keep Republicans out of office and may stave off a likely autocracy. Your problem may be due to some misbegotten sense of fairness on your part. Fairness has never had a place in real life or politics.
A flaw in your thinking is that if Bidens administration takes credit for positive changes due to their policies they must also accept a degree of blame for circumstances beyond their control.

To start with...

That first part is just nonsensical.

It is honestly more along the lines of "What You Believe To Be A 'Win...' In The Short Term Will Be A 'Loss..." Once The Wind Changes..."

It has more to do with accepting the reality that chasing a "Win..." in the short term can jump up and bite you in the but when things take a turn.

To me?

It is more about minimizing hard feelings that can develop in the electorate because you will absolutely need them to keep Republicans out of office.

These "Wins..." you are talking about?

They should always take a backseat to that.

As for that "Flaw..." that is blue?

If circumstances are beyond your control, than your policies are not really creating changes positive or negative.

Folks will see right through it when you are only around to take credit for positive change and nowhere to be found when things take a turn for the worse.

Those folks are the ones a politician will need to keep Republicans out of power.

Now, past all of that?

It is incredibly foolish to say "Fairness Has Never Had A Place In Real Life Or Politics...", and then turn around and talk about how Biden is not getting a fair shake or credit for a "Win.." when you think he should be getting it.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

There are, in my uninformed opinion, THREE reasons Trump is running for president again:

EGO
For four years, Trump was arguably the most powerful man on the planet. For an unrepentant narcissist like Trump, that was the ultimate rush, a rush he wants to experience again, but this time, do all he can to never give it up because of a pesky nuisance like the Constitution

SELF-PRESERVATION
I’ve said in this thread more than once that the only thing Trump fears more than losing his wealth is losing his freedom. With nearly 100 indictments under his belt and facing four criminal cases, Trump is desperate to win so he can again hide behind the skirts of presidential immunity

PAYBACK
Trump has always been obsessed with revenge. He never forgives and never forgets, and he’s already made it plain he plans to weaponize the DOJ in order to go after his enemies, both real and imagined should he win. That’s a threat which should be taken very seriously

Perhaps I’m wrong about all this, but this is what I see regarding Trump and the danger he poses to democracy and the country.

[Jack Dracula]

To start with...

That first part is just nonsensical.

It is honestly more along the lines of "What You Believe To Be A 'Win...' In The Short Term Will Be A 'Loss..." Once The Wind Changes..."

What "wind" are you referring to?

It has more to do with accepting the reality that chasing a "Win..." in the short term can jump up and bite you in the but when things take a turn.

So, the idea is to never try to create a positive change because of a vague notion it may backfire. Sounds like a good strategy.

To me?

It is more about minimizing hard feelings that can develop in the electorate because you will absolutely need them to keep Republicans out of office.

Yes, the best thing to do is pander to the portion of the electorate whose feelings change with the "wind" because they can't be relied on to vote in their own best interests.

As for that "Flaw..." that is blue?

If circumstances are beyond your control, than your policies are not really creating changes positive or negative.

Some circumstances are inevitably beyond Bidens control. You pretend to not know that.

Folks will see right through it when you are only around to take credit for positive change and nowhere to be found when things take a turn for the worse.

Those folks are the ones a politician will need to keep Republicans out of power.

Now, past all of that?

It is incredibly foolish to say "Fairness Has Never Had A Place In Real Life Or Politics...", and then turn around and talk about how Biden is not getting a fair shake or credit for a "Win.." when you think he should be getting it.

I was about halfway through typing replies to everything wrong here, but really, it isn't worth going around this anymore with you.
You pretend ignorance of actual politics to push some vague notion of perfection, implying that voters must ignore the actual wolves at the door and wrongly focus on whether the only people standing between us and them are worthy of our support. Your pretend ignorance of that fact is dishonest and I won't help you spread it any farther.

[numberthirty]

...

So, the idea is to never try to create a positive change because of a vague notion it may backfire. Sounds like a good strategy.

...

Negative.

The idea is to work towards positive changes without "Wins..." playing any part in what you are doing.

Voters can easily see that positive changes are happening without someone running up to a microphone looking for their blue ribbon.

...

Yes, the best thing to do is pander to the portion of the electorate whose feelings change with the "wind" because they can't be relied on to vote in their own best interests.

...

"Pander..." is something that only you are talking in terms of.

Meanwhile, out in actual reality?

A politician could just level with folks about exactly what they can and cannot change.

Past that?

"Can't Be Relied On To Vote In Their Own Best Interests..."?

Sounds a whole lot like blaming a victim.

Never mind that a reasonable person would have to ask themselves if things being twenty percent more expensive is in those folk's best interest.

[numberthirty]

Man, get well soon...

[Jack Dracula]

Negative.

The idea is to work towards positive changes without "Wins..." playing any part in what you are doing.

Voters can easily see that positive changes are happening without someone running up to a microphone looking for their blue ribbon.



"Pander..." is something that only you are talking in terms of.

Meanwhile, out in actual reality?

A politician could just level with folks about exactly what they can and cannot change.

Past that?

"Can't Be Relied On To Vote In Their Own Best Interests..."?

Sounds a whole lot like blaming a victim.

Never mind that a reasonable person would have to ask themselves if things being twenty percent more expensive is in those folk's best interest.

At this point it’s clear your ego won’t allow you to see the actual stakes right now or you’re pulling for the opposition.
Either way, I fail see why I should waste more time and energy here.