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

[numberthirty]

Never mind places like Southport Lanes closing up for good...

https://chicago.eater.com/2020/9/17/...osing-lakeview

Chicago’s Iconic Southport Lanes to Close Permanently After Nearly a Century

[Mister Mets]

As in not feeling the need to broadly refer to rape survivors as nutjobs for the sake of a useless pro-Trump post.

Tami's post a while back about the best description, from the UK, about Trump seems dead right, since it also trickles down to his (still breathing) supporters.

Let's look at the comment.

Save yourselves some heartburn and accept that Trump is going to his nominee confirmed and placed on the high court. Even the Dems know it which is why their heads are exploding. Hearings begin before the election, voting takes place after. If Trump wins (he will) Collins votes for the nominee, even if she is beaten in her race. If she is beaten in her race, she still vote for them because she has nothing to lose and can (correctly) say that the whole process is supposed to decide one thing - is the nominee qualified for the position?

Trump is going to picked a qualified woman. that will make it hard for Murkowski or Collins or even RINO Mitt to vote against them. The Dems will have a harder time finding some nutjob claiming they were gang-raped by a woman....they still might though..

Relax, the way Roberts is going, it'll still be a 5-4 Conservative/Liberal split.

That was a reference to Julie Swetnick, and there seem to be two possibilities. The first is that she and several other young college-age women were raped by Brett Kavanaugh and a friend of his when Kavanaugh was in high school, as part of something the future Supreme Court justice did repeatedly and publicly. The second is that she is a nutjob or a liar, and certainly not a rape survivor.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...accuser-845348

https://deadline.com/2018/10/brett-k...eo-1202474548/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/jus...anaugh-n924596

It is worth noting that Democrats took Swetnick's allegations seriously, so it's completely fair for Republicans to bring up now.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...inst-kavanaugh

[Joker]

Never mind places like Southport Lanes closing up for good...

https://chicago.eater.com/2020/9/17/...osing-lakeview

Why's it not fair to blame the man in charge for the jobs lost because he had no Nationwide response? States were forced to take action on their own because the Federal Government went ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

The Federal Government is still just going ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

But do you think concert venues and bowling alleys should just open up? Jobs lost > lives lost?

[numberthirty]

Why's it not fair to blame the man in charge for the jobs lost because he had no Nationwide response? States were forced to take action on their own because the Federal Government went ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

It's not fair to blame him "Entirely" when he cannot dictate that the city of Chicago cannot decide it's own guidelines(which are going to put Southport Lanes out of business...)

It is a city call, and a realistic call by a business owner not to pitch money into the fireplace.

The President is largely a non-issue. He will not try to challenge the rules Chicago has put into place.

He is not in charge of the rules Chicago enacts.

[numberthirty]

Which is not to say I don't understand what Chicago is doing. Honestly, I would probably have clamped down a little harder than they did.

That said, I wouldn't really be looking to put the blame for my calls onto the Governor or President's shoulders.

[numberthirty]

...

But do you think concert venues and bowling alleys should just open up? Jobs lost > lives lost?

No.

That said, I think that the buck stops at the city making the sensible call. The responsibility for the eventual jobs lost realistically goes no higher than that.

It is a city deciding to potentially shed jobs in order to minimize potential spread of a disease. City Call/City Responsibility.

[Moon Ronin]

I lose a debate when the facts suggest an outcome I suspected was unlikely to transpire has only occurred two out of ten times the scenario manifested in the past?

You lose the debate because of the way you presented your argument even if you were correct on the substance. I should amend my statement to: Basing an argument solely on "what if" with out backing it up by data,facts and/or accounts is in my opinion where you lose a debate.
You are correct if the roles were reversed each side would equally swap their view on it and I agree with your statement.
A small supplement is that Bull Frog Mitch stated as much in 2016 about the historical president of when such a vacancy happens. The "McConnell Doctrine" isn't that a president should not nominate a Supreme Court Justice in his final year off office. Its that the Senate can choose to defer approving any nominee until after the election if the Presidency and Senate are controlled by different parties as it has been done the majority of the time it has occurred.

[InformationGeek]

Siiiiiiiiiiiigh. Just another day with him.

The president on violent protesters: "Cans of tuna fish. They go out and buy tuna fish and soup. You know that, right?...Because they throw it. It's the perfect weight, tuna fish, they can really rip it, right? And that hits you. No, it's true. Bumble Bee brand tuna."

[Joker]

Oh, is that why I, here in an "Anarchist Jurisdiction" have not been able to purchase Tuna lately? Specifically, Bumble Bee Brand?

Makes a lot of sense.

I love how he ends it with "NO, it's true!" fucking lol. No one ends a believable statement with "No, it's true"

[zinderel]

Good to see you stand for women, when they toe the liberal line...

I stand for women who don’t actively seek to harm other women in the name of their anti-Christian ‘Christianity’, but thanks for playing.

[Wildling]

Let's look at the comment.

I looked then, but then wondered at your nonexistant, and maybe late now, reply to this then.

Never mind that you can have an accusation without merit and blame victims at the same time.

Because nobody actually believes THAT, based on all evidence, is beyond Trump and his supporters, anyway.

[Farealmer]

I stand for women who don’t actively seek to harm other women in the name of their anti-Christian ‘Christianity’, but thanks for playing.

I can't tell is he talking about abortion?

[Moon Ronin]

I can't tell is he talking about abortion?

Yes Amy Coney Barrett is a very devout Catholic and has a strong personal standpoint about abortion.

[zinderel]

I can't tell is he talking about abortion?

I am not a fan of Trumps likely nominee because of her stance on abortion. If she believes they are bad, or wrong, that’s fine. For HER. But when she tries to impose her morality and beliefs on all women, as we absolutely know she will do (since this is PRECISELY why they are rushing this before Trump is hopefully ousted), that is actively harming other women based on her very un-Christ-like interpretation of Christianity as a dominating, rather than supportive force.

He disagrees, and tried zinging me about it. *shrug*

[JCAll]

Siiiiiiiiiiiigh. Just another day with him.

It's supposed to be Chicken of the Sea, not Chicken of the Oval Office.