Kalbear

Members
  • Content count

    43,732
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kalbear

  • Rank
    57 Warning Points
  • Birthday 10/26/1974

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://addictedtoquack.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The worst BwB meetup area EVER

Recent Profile Visitors

15,537 profile views
  1. US Politics: There's No Morning After Pill

    McConnell's strategy paid off. I don't know how it damaged anyone. The Republicans got almost every single thing they possibly wanted save Romney elected in 2012. They got campaign reform destroyed, they got to repeal the ACA, they got a Republican majority everywhere for the first time in, like, a billion years and they got all this at a time when executive action was at its highest power ever. The obstruction strategy is awesome for Republicans because they want most of the government to be ineffective so they can privatize it. This is why the Democrats as a whole shouldn't do obstruction as a tactic, because they are the party that is supposed to show that government can, actually, do things. The Republican platform, meanwhile, had precisely one thing edited out - the response to Ukraine - and everything else is staying in. No, the value for Sanders (or really, any Democrat, but Sanders as outsider especially) is acting as an actual opposition point to Trump in everything. He doesn't need to lead the Democratic party right now, and arguably that's not what his supporters want anyway. But he can be a symbol of that opposition, especially when that symbol costs him nothing at all. He can plausibly argue against Mattis if it comes up later anyway, make it a point that he refuses to support those who need a waiver regardless, and otherwise plausibly state that he was against Trump at every single point. This is how Obama positioned himself and won in 2008 - he could state and show that his limited record he was completely and totally anti-Bush at every point, and could use that against Clinton. If the Democrats are going to have any kind of chance, they'll need someone like that. It might not pay off - it could be that Trump's policies are successful or popular, or only some of them are horrific and others are good - but you need to have that as an option in a couple years.
  2. US Politics: There's No Morning After Pill

    Did you see that on a message board?
  3. US Politics: There's No Morning After Pill

    Not in this action, no. Though it is somewhat telling that Schumer also voted for it; it means that the notion of constant resistance to Trump's stuff won't be happening, either because Schumer isn't wanting it or he can't control the senate dems. No, but McConnell basically was. And then there's Cotton, who basically delayed Obama's candidate just so they could die of leukemia and make Obama feel bad. McConnell ostensibly aligned with Obama on a whole lot of things. They weren't diametrically opposed on things like TPP, for example. It didn't matter; McConnell simply viewed his role was to obstruct Obama whenever he possibly could. I'm not surprised that Sanders would be cool with Trump's view on TPP. That's not particularly offensive to me, nor is it particularly surprising. Praising Trump for it, however, is very surprising. Praising Trump when not speaking out about, say, Trump's order to ban all funding to any contraceptive services worldwide that also happen to go to places which do abortion? That sucks. Him not speaking out about killing the ACA? That sucks. His not even doing a symbolic opposition of Trump's candidates when he could have without any reprisal? That sucks.
  4. US Politics: There's No Morning After Pill

    On Sanders, it's mostly that he had a fairly clear opportunity to actually be the opposition to Trump in every single facet of the man's being, and he isn't. He is willing to play along with him and even work with him if it means getting some things that he supposedly wants. He could have been the Democratic version of McConnell, but nope.
  5. US Politics: There's No Morning After Pill

    Apparently he was, though the last report was 12 years ago. Amusingly, in searching for this I found this bit from the reporting of GWB's RNC convention: See how far the GOP has come? 12 years later and they're fine with demeaning comments to women and using obscene and profane language.
  6. US Politics: There's No Morning After Pill

    OH MY FUCKING GOD STOP WITH THE ROCK BULLSHIT DO YOU WANT CAMACHO AS PRESIDENT? BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU GET CAMACHO. Also, SMH Bernie. While I happen to think that Mattis is a pretty good pick, Sanders praising Trump for the TPP XO and then voting for both his candidates when he doesn't have to and gets nothing out of it kind of belies much in the way of his leading any resistance.
  7. Let's go through with these individually and see how we can tackle them. Paternity rights continue to favor women (ironically given the term) largely because women are seen as the nurturers who should take care of children while men are seen as not as capable. This seems to be fixed more readily by encouraging women help career growth while encouraging men to be caregivers, and promote both. Probably not solely a man's issue, and certainly not easily fought unless considered through the lens of egalitarianism. Crime/justice is pretty harsh for women as well - while men are more likely to get harsher sentences, women are more likely to be victimized and not have justice. I suspect strongly this has much more of a problem along ethnicity than it does sex, and along wealth vs. sex, but I could be wrong. Another aspect to be considered here is that boys early on are given far more leeway in behaving badly compared to girls, and this contributes to a certain lawlessness later on. Education is a pretty big one. I suspect some of the reasons behind #2 also go with this. Removing some of the outlets for physical education in schools is also hurting boys, as has been seen in studies. Higher education and college is where it's really getting interesting to me, however, and I wonder how much drug use/independence is really helping. Addiction I think is also more of a societal thing - women, for instance, are encouraged to drink wine and underreport alcoholism heavily. I've not seen any studies indicating that males are particularly more prone to addiction than females physiologically, which makes me think it is societal permissiveness along with allowing men to do more hard drugs and get rewarded for it socially. Mental health and physical health are major issues that men need to deal with, and part of that simply comes from machismo culture that says you don't talk about hurt, you don't talk about feelings and you drink it away as the 'acceptable' way to go. Men have significantly fewer intimate relationships, almost none that aren't sexual, and have almost no outlets for male bonding that aren't riddled with other problems. Physical contact between men is forbidden too. It's absolutely atrociously bad. It is something as a father that I constantly attempt to showcase with my sons - kissing, hugging, touching - because I want them to not even remotely think for a second that it is bad. Making 'seeing a therapist' as a pre-existing condition that can allow health insurance to not cover you kind of sucks ass in this regard, too.
  8. US Politics: There's No Morning After Pill

    Maybe. They fucked with TV plenty back in the day, and it worked out okay. Most people don't care until it directly hits them, and most people have no idea what net neutrality actually means. ETA: also, Trump et al caring about a bunch of silicon valley businesses? Fuck them. He doesn't care. They aren't employing thousands of factory workers. He could literally not care less about what Californians think.
  9. US Politics: There's No Morning After Pill

    There's a lot more money in favor of it, and it isn't like google and facebook are giving those candidacies money. It's almost certainly dead.
  10. US Politics: There's No Morning After Pill

    Not when it's your own state, and you're an incumbent. That's pretty remarkably low. Especially when the governor in the same state is doing better. As the article says, one likely reason is that she simply doesn't have bipartisan appeal, at all.
  11. Bakker XLVI: Make Eärwa Great Again

    Note that I'm almost certainly wrong about this, given that @bakkerfans hasn't chimed in with a 'oooh' or 'mwahhah' when someone is right.
  12. US Politics: There's No Morning After Pill

    Another very real possibility would be Bloomberg, who had thought about running but was worried he'd essentially cause Trump to win. Democrats might not be super thrilled with that, but it might be enough after 4 years. I am still thinking that it's optimistic to believe that anyone will beat an incumbent in 4 years time, especially given said incumbent will likely be in the middle of at least one war and major terrorist issues.
  13. US Politics: There's No Morning After Pill

    I don't think anyone's specifically thinking Warren save, perhaps, Stonekettle. The current plans include Cory Booker (who is problematic), Sanders, Warren, and Biden. That being said it's a pretty long road, and both Obama and Clinton came basically out of nowhere on the world. There is some time.
  14. US Politics: There's No Morning After Pill

    Also, on that Warren talk - Warren is currently polling neck and neck with 'anyone else' in her own state. She's a good attack source, but she's not a particularly good presidential candidate for a whole lot of reasons. Most notably is that her best asset is that she's basically kinda like Sanders, but in that case why not go for Sanders?