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

[CSTowle]

Use of mail in ballots did alter the outcome of the 2020 election, but there was nothing fraudulent about it. It's just that, due to the pandemic, there were a lot more mail in ballots than ever before.

Yup, altered the elections by giving more people a voice. Allowing them to participate in democracy and feel (and have) some ownership/say in how our society operates. That should be viewed as a good thing, even by those who disagree with the way the majority of us voted.

[Catlady in training]

My jaw just dropped. For a sitting Senator to openly call for the assassination of a head of state is stupidity on steroids and will only inflame the situation while making Putin paranoid and give him an excuse to believe the U.S. wants him dead. What the fuck was Graham thinking? That idiot should be censored for his remarks, if not outright punished, sadly, I suspect nothing will happen to him, not while Craven Kevin McCarthy is running the GQP.

My thought were similar to this. It's almost like what Trump might have said.

[AnakinFlair]

Putin needs to be put down like the rabid dog he is

Looks like Lindey Graham agrees with ypu.

If this doesn't get better in next hour, I'm killing myself, I don't want to die of radiation. If that happens, it has been nice to get to know you all.

Thank you for the support, it seems to be contained now, but Russians have captured the plant, who knows what is going to happen.
I don't get this, I though I could imagine what evil means, but I apparently couldn't. I don't understand how someone can be so evil.



I don't want to imagine what it would be like if this war happened with Trump in the office. Now we have one evil psychopath/sociopath/evil incarnate/whatever he is with nuclear power, in the other case there would also be a complete idiot with nuclear power.

Yeah, please don't consider doing that. I can't imagine how stressful things must be where you are right now, but you have to believe they will get better.

As for the second thing you said, we can imagine what this would have been like with Trump in the White House- he would have done nothing. He would have been pressuring the rest of NATO to do nothing. Hell, he might have even tried to pull out of NATO altogether. And he would have publicly supported Putin.

My thought were similar to this. It's almost like what Trump might have said.

Actually, I think it might be the opposite. Graham has spent the past 6 years kissing Trump's ass, because he was the golden child of the Republican party. But Trump's numbers have been slipping, and maybe Lindsey sees that Trump won't be in charge forever, or for even much longer. And so now he wants to distance himself from Trump's opinions.

Or he just really wants to get us into a war. Could be that, too.

[AnakinFlair]

Yup, altered the elections by giving more people a voice. Allowing them to participate in democracy and feel (and have) some ownership/say in how our society operates. That should be viewed as a good thing, even by those who disagree with the way the majority of us voted.

Don't you know it's only a good thing if they won? If they lost, it's obviously fraud.

[babyblob]

Russian Parliament has passed a law prohibiting the spread of "Fake News" This includes Russians who call the war in Ukraine a War, and Invasion, an act of aggression by Russia. Also calling for sanctions in public or agreeing with the sanctions in public will also now be a crime. The punishment ranges from fines to up to 15 years in jail. the stiffest punishment is for those that publicly and knowingly discredit The Russian Armed Forces, but those who also knowingly spread Western Disinformation will also face stiff punishment. Russia is also limiting access to The BBC and other news sites like Cnn as they are the biggest spreaders of "Fake News"

[Ragged Maw]

Russian Parliament has passed a law prohibiting the spread of "Fake News" This includes Russians who call the war in Ukraine a War, and Invasion, an act of aggression by Russia. Also calling for sanctions in public or agreeing with the sanctions in public will also now be a crime. The punishment ranges from fines to up to 15 years in jail. the stiffest punishment is for those that publicly and knowingly discredit The Russian Armed Forces, but those who also knowingly spread Western Disinformation will also face stiff punishment. Russia is also limiting access to The BBC and other news sites like Cnn as they are the biggest spreaders of "Fake News"

Any chance that these sorts of draconian measures in this era could backfire on themselves?

[JB]

Denny Doyle, former mayor of Beaverton OR, charged with possession of child pornography
https://www.kptv.com/2022/03/04/denn...d-pornography/

A former mayor of Beaverton has been charged with possession of child pornography, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office - District of Oregon.

Dennis “Denny” Doyle, 73, will make his first federal court appearance Friday for one count of possession of child pornography.

The U.S. attorney’s office, citing court documents, said Doyle is alleged to have “knowingly and unlawfully possessed digital material containing child pornography, including images depicting minors under 12,” between Nov. 2014 and Dec. 2015.

Doyle was mayor of Beaverton from Jan. 2009 to Jan. 2021. He served as a Beaverton city councilor for 14 years before being elected mayor.

[Tami]

Sky News team's harrowing account of their violent ambush in Ukraine this week

On Monday, near Kyiv, chief correspondent Stuart Ramsay and his team were attacked. Camera operator Richie Mockler took two rounds to his body armour, Stuart was wounded. Their experience illustrates the scale of the mayhem and violence as Russia's invasion enters a new and deadlier phase.

[babyblob]

Any chance that these sorts of draconian measures in this era could backfire on themselves?

In most other countries I would say yes. But in Russia I am not sure.

[JCAll]

My jaw just dropped. For a sitting Senator to openly call for the assassination of a head of state is stupidity on steroids and will only inflame the situation while making Putin paranoid and give him an excuse to believe the U.S. wants him dead. What the fuck was Graham thinking? That idiot should be censored for his remarks, if not outright punished, sadly, I suspect nothing will happen to him, not while Craven Kevin McCarthy is running the GQP.

It's such an obviously bad idea, I'm surprised Putin didn't call him up and tell him to do it.

[Mister Mets]

I've been a bit busy the last two days, so I haven't been able to respond as much. Regarding Russia and Ukraine...

One thing that I hope is changed as soon as possible is the definition of war crimes.

Right now it’s defined too narrowly I think. So it’s okay for example to kill soldiers defending their country after a totally unprovoked invasion. Even okay to kill civilians if they are unfortunate enough to live close to something like military barracks, or a military hospital.

To qualify as a war crime under present legal definitions certain types of bombs have to be used, or the killing of civilians has to be totally, utterly reckless (if some civilians die in taking a legitimate military target, then no crime.)

I think the circumstances in which the original decision to start the war should influence what is defined as a crime. When a tyrant decides to invade a sovereign nation with a freely elected government….then all the evil that flows from that decision is a crime, because that initial decision itself should be regarded as illegal.

In this case Putins war crimes should include every Russian soldier that dies, every Ukrainian defender that dies, all the scarce resources destroyed…not just those killed by particularly vile weapons.

I completely agree. It's weird that coming up with a patently false pretext to invade a democracy is not a war crime.

[QUOTE=AnakinFlair;5955975]

You're assuming he cares what the history books think of him. Some people like him don't care about that, because they know they won't be around. All he seems to care about is how he looks RIGHT NOW.

He may also have a warped impression of history. He can figure if he wins he'll be remembered as the person who took back what used to be Russia's, and set up an independent and self-sustained sphere of influence reestablishing Russia as one of the great powers.

He invaded Georgia back in 2008. I wonder why the world didnt make it as big a deal as Ukraine.

This is an interesting question.

There are more smart phones so it's easier to convey this information.

Kiev is a major European city, while the main fighting in Georgia is in villages.

There is also something particularly shameful about Putin's lies in Ukraine, like the claim that there's a genocide against ethnic Russians, or that the Jewish President is in an alliance with Nazis.

Never underestimate a tyrannical despot's willingness to burn the world down around them rather than lose. Hitler gave the order to scorch the earth. He didn't care that his own people would suffer, just that the Allies wouldn't be able to get anything out of Germany. And it wasn't like he was planning on living with the consequences, either.

It's been rumored that Putin has been ill for some time. He had Covid not too long ago; it's possible that he has Parkinsons. That's why I don't doubt he's probably willing to use nuclear weapons- he may think he doesn't have long for this world, and he's willing to take everyone else out with him.

I would like to think that he wants to go down in the history books as a liberator, rather than a destroyer. So, no he will not cause a WW3. My prediction is: He will occupy Ukrainia, after that he tries to negotiate again about the sanctions. Depends on how it works out for him he will take a look at other non Nato countrys. Or he will attack them anyway, doesn't matter the outcome of the negotiations.

But he will not attack the Nato.

I don't think there is much of a risk of Putin choosing World War 3, because no one's on his side, except maybe puppet states like Belarus.

There's a different problem than a potentially protracted relatively even war. The US military could wipe out the Russian military pretty quickly. The main concern is nuclear reprisal, and Ukranian legitimacy going forward.

[Mister Mets]

Now for trans issues...

Iowa has signed into law and Indiana has sent to the governor laws banning transgender girls from playing in girls sports.


Mass transphobia is the tip of the wedge for the GOP and they will continue to weaponize fear-mongering over trans individuals until they are stopped.

This is a separate question from what we've mainly been dealing with.

There are reasons that men and women are in different leagues in sports, and it has implications in records as well as athletic scholarships. Obviously people who don't like trans issues are going to jump on this question, but there are other potential issues. This could be like a middleweight getting an exemption to fight lightweights, or a failed NFL rookie going back to college football.

But in the overall scheme of things is the evil that is flowing from this anywhere as bad as that from the Ukrainian/ Russian conflict?

It’s not as if Putin’s Russia is a bastion of human liberty in all other respects! If he extends his governments influence in wider and wider areas gay, trans rights will be profoundly damaged in vast territories…apart from an assortment of other evils.

Yeah, Putin's Russia is much worse than living in a red state.

There are exactly no unresolved issues...and anyone who says other wise is transphobic. Period.

Yeah, that's pretty much much it.

- There is a lot we don't know on these questions. The suggestion that believing otherwise is transphobic is deeply flawed. Many trans people are figuring out things for themselves based on changing understandings (IE- we have a greater understanding that some people are non-binary than we had a few years ago.)

One welcome development is the understanding that people can be trans without surgery or hormones, and that it's okay for people who are trans not to fit stereotypes.

There seem to be two contradictory arguments from some on the left, that gender is a social construct, and that children intuitively know their gender. Not everyone's going to agree with those views, but it's an example of how there's stuff we're not clear about.

I'm curious: On a scale of 1 to 10, how eager are you to hear that, really?

About a nine. I legitimately want to know the truth on all issues, and the evidence for it.

Policies involving trans children would be an especially contentious issue, but I don't want to be wrong on it.

Ample evidence of the benefits for gender-affirming care has already been presented, and the points you have rallied to defend have already been thoroughly pointed to as debunked with valid scientific studies, and yet here you are, demanding 'evidence' that you'll never allow yourself to be satisfied with because the entire point of the narrative you are subscribing to is to prevent transition by trans kids, hoping that by delaying it they will suddenly not be trans.

Instead, the laws you are seeking to defend, in preventing hormone treatments that start at 16, are instead consigning a child to go through physical changes associated with their assigned sex that they do not wish to go through. If a girl started growing a beard, they'd assign her anti-androgens and HRT to ensure she developed in line with her self-conception and identity, and no one would bat an eyelash. A trans kid says they're trans, however, and suddenly you want to deny them gender-affirming care for 'reasons'.

This is nothing more than rank transphobia and hope for the success of conversion therapy or simply keeping them in the closet.

If you want to protect 'the children', then access to gender affirming care for *all children* is a necessity.

There seems to be a level of certainty from supporters of certain policies that is unmerited. If your side makes bold claims, that is the goalpost.

Conversion therapy is an example of a policy that is banned even if parents want it. It's a case where what parents think is best is not allowed.

There's an obvious response that children don't get a say, although I'm sure there are situations where children are pressured to be in conversion therapy, and would tell people who interview them that this is what they legitimately want.

To demand the perfect right answer in order to refute an abviously.wrong one is a disingenuous fallacy on Mets part anyways. It is much easier to realize something doesn't work - before the Wright brothers flew everyone knew that the answer wasn't flapping your arms harder. This is the same - even someone who doesn't know how to deal with someone coming out as transgender (or even just asking questions) is NOT to make them afraid of losing their family.

In most cases, it's a mistake to claim that there's a perfect answer. I rarely do.

I respond to the goal posts people set up. If a claim is that there is so much certainty any doubt is transphobic, I'm going to push back on that, especially on a topic where our understanding is changing. And it just seems unlikely that this is the moment where we've figured everything out.

[Mister Mets]

And now for mostly other stuff...

Beijing will pay if it helps Russia evade sanctions, US State Department official warns
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/arti...3993b1d32bcae7



Republicans and Democrats Unite To Slam Lindsey Graham for Calling for Putin’s Assassination
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ation-1316372/

It's something he shouldn't say as a Senator, but I'm not sure he's wrong. I'm sure he believe this, and I wouldn't be surprised is a majority of his constituents agree with it as well.

Mitich McConnell and Rand Paul are the sentators of Kentucky that should be a big clue.

Nope.

Federal legislators are usually not responsible for state policy.

Why not remove said poster so he doesn’t keep spewing his nonsense?

The question would be where we draw the line. What mistakes should be allowed, and what mistakes should be banworthy? We could have a principle that if you persist with a lie after being explicitly warned about it, it can lead to a ban, but is that a principle you want applied to your side?

If the three people here blaming Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, who have never been members of the Kentucky state legislature, for a decision involving Kentucky teacher pensions, ever make some other comment blaming a federal legislator for state problems (or vice versa) should they be banned?

We also definitely don't want to create a situation where someone gets banned for posting something true.

I fully agree that xheight is wrong. But the ability to ban him for it can also be used to ban someone else who says something that turns out to be true but unpopular.

How is that a lie when it is the term 'meddling' that has become so distorted as to trigger notions of rigging rather than pointing to information which is not material effect. One has to do with human agency, making choices on what one believes, and the other removes it, ballot fixing.

False use of words has become so standard in the english press that only the critic of the MSM are still attuned to the lies that spreads. I suppose that is why the Left has become so keen on controlling it and even outlawing certain words when it was the Right for so long that just feared its corruption.

I agree that terms are used inappropriately. There do seem to be left-wing and right-wing equivalents here. Some critics of Trump will make bold claims about the effects of Russian interference, and when they're talking about a rigged election, it's facebook ads and misinformation. Some of the Trump fans yelling about "stop the steal" will point to policies that are categorically different than a stolen election (IE- increases in absentee ballots, increases in early voting, the media being against Trump.) We should strive to be accurate about what we talk about. Too often people are excused for being wrong because they're seen as being on the correct side.

It would seem conservatives would rather lie about trans people as a distraction from the fact that they've been supporting politicians backing a foreign adversary who's a murderous dictator currently carrying out war crimes. That, and that there's a wing of domestic terrorists who plotted a coup attempt with other members of the Republican Party last year who are all on trial for that seditious conspiracy.

Most voters don't think the way you do, nor do Republican strategists make that assumption. So the impression of motives will likely be inaccurate.

I should also add they probably don't want to talk about how new cases of Covid-19 have dropped to their lowest levels in nine months, as if the vaccines, testing, and organizational treatment methods across American healthcare the CDC are implementing are working against the Omicron variant, in spite of conservatives' best efforts to allow the disease to run unchecked.

It was brilliant of President Biden to make Omicron more contagious but less extreme.

There is not, however, a difference between "Russia wants to weaken the Western world" and "Russia supports Trump, the modern GOP, and Brexit." The first fact explains the second fact - Trump, the modern GOP, and Brexit all make their countries weaker and poorer.

The modern-day political goals and motives of the political groups Putin supports abroad are so foolish, so short-sighted, so delusional that Putin can enjoy weaker rivals and peers.

Trump, Brexit, and the modern GOP are so defined by a delusion of cultural strength that means their Christians are acting un-Christian, their patriots are acting as traitors, their businessmen are reduced to hoarders and thieves, and those seeking safety in their protection are hurting themselves and their loved ones to spite imaginary enemies.

This is what happens when you pass from one type of conservativism into regression and fascism.

Decent people can believe that Brexit is the right policy, or that Trump was a better presidential candidate than Hillary Clinton.

Putin exploits divisions, including when people freak out about his potential influence.

[thwhtGuardian]

Now for trans issues...

This is a separate question from what we've mainly been dealing with.

There are reasons that men and women are in different leagues in sports, and it has implications in records as well as athletic scholarships. Obviously people who don't like trans issues are going to jump on this question, but there are other potential issues. This could be like a middleweight getting an exemption to fight lightweights, or a failed NFL rookie going back to college football.

Yeah, Putin's Russia is much worse than living in a red state.

- There is a lot we don't know on these questions. The suggestion that believing otherwise is transphobic is deeply flawed. Many trans people are figuring out things for themselves based on changing understandings (IE- we have a greater understanding that some people are non-binary than we had a few years ago.)

One welcome development is the understanding that people can be trans without surgery or hormones, and that it's okay for people who are trans not to fit stereotypes.

There seem to be two contradictory arguments from some on the left, that gender is a social construct, and that children intuitively know their gender. Not everyone's going to agree with those views, but it's an example of how there's stuff we're not clear about.

About a nine. I legitimately want to know the truth on all issues, and the evidence for it.

Policies involving trans children would be an especially contentious issue, but I don't want to be wrong on it.

There seems to be a level of certainty from supporters of certain policies that is unmerited. If your side makes bold claims, that is the goalpost.

Conversion therapy is an example of a policy that is banned even if parents want it. It's a case where what parents think is best is not allowed.

There's an obvious response that children don't get a say, although I'm sure there are situations where children are pressured to be in conversion therapy, and would tell people who interview them that this is what they legitimately want.

In most cases, it's a mistake to claim that there's a perfect answer. I rarely do.

I respond to the goal posts people set up. If a claim is that there is so much certainty any doubt is transphobic, I'm going to push back on that, especially on a topic where our understanding is changing. And it just seems unlikely that this is the moment where we've figured everything out.

It's very clear that punishing parents for caring for their children is wrong and trying to pretend that it isn't evil really isn't a good look Mets...this is an undefendable position and should have been a very easy case where one could say, "Hey, I'm a conservative not a monster." but strangely you can't.

[thwhtGuardian]

The sports issue is also wrong headed.

The math: The Iowa Department of Education’s puts the state’s K-12 enrollment at 484,159 students. Statistics are few, but a 2017 peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Public Health estimated 390 out of 100,000 Americans are transgender. Applied to Iowa’s school population, that’s about 1,888 students.

The bills, however, apply only to transgender females. Surveys, such as Social Security records and surgical statistics, indicate that transgender males (assigned-at-birth females transitioning to male) are more prevalent than females – perhaps as much as 65% to 35%. For the sake of argument, let’s say half – 944 – of the estimated 1,888 transgender students are female.

But that includes elementary-age students, whose sex-based physical differences are less significant and who aren’t yet playing school-based organized sports. That means the relevant number of transgender students is undoubtedly far less, maybe half again: 472, spread across 327 school districts. So, on average, perhaps one or two students in a district may be a middle- or high-school transgender female.

Obviously, the number will be larger at big schools and perhaps zero at small schools. But it’s still a tiny number that gets even tinier because only some transgender students want to play sports. In any school, there are band kids and theater kids and sports kids.

These few transgender females hardly pose an existential threat to girls’ sports. But if lawmakers continue to insist that transgender females play men’s soccer or basketball, the students also will have to share locker rooms and showers with cisgender boys. Is that what legislators want? Do they really want to humiliate these youths?

The science: For transgender children, the unwanted bodily changes associated with puberty can be distressing, perhaps even deadly with some considering suicide. Loving parents ensure their offspring get treatment, including, in many cases, pubertal blockers – drugs that temporarily delay the onset of adolescence while children clarify their feelings. That means some, if not most, transgender females will forgo the testosterone surge that gives them a theoretical athletic edge.

I say “theoretical” because it’s unclear that transgender females really are physically superior to cisgender females. As Dr. Jack Turban, a fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford University School of Medicine, told public radio in May 2021, cisgender men may perform better than cisgender females, “but a cisgender man is not a transgender woman.” The hormone treatments many transgender females receive limit or eliminate any potential testosterone benefit. The rare transgender female who plays sports may have little advantage – or no advantage at all.

California has let students choose whether to play boys’ or girls’ sports based on their self-perception, regardless of their birth gender, since 2013. Nonetheless, in a state with nearly 40 million people, no transgender girls are dominating sports leagues, Turban noted. If they were, transgender rights opponents are sure to say so.

Again its simple, you're either a decent human being or you're transphobic. Which do you want to be?