DMC

Yeah I’m not even sure what that means. My prepping to pack is…packing.

So Biden chose my campus to hold an event today, literally the building adjacent to where I work and teach. I don’t have much to share - my main take is it was a bitch and a half getting out of there to get home (thanks Biden!) - but a few observations: First, there was a decent-sized pro-Palestinian contingent, probably 45 to 50 people by my reckoning. These were non-students and true believers - Biden coming specifically here was not public knowledge, even to our students, until this morning. Their signage and chants were of course incendiary, but in about ten minutes observing them…and then another five when the fuckers held up traffic as I was trying to leave, I did not see nor hear anything antisemitic. There also was a number of students on the rope line with pro-Palestinian signage, but nothing I could see that was even offensive - particularly compared to the much more hateful right wing rabble. At one point a contingent of about a dozen RFK supporters walked by me. 10 out of 12 were at least seventy. When I went to the back lot to smoke as I do every day I shot the shit with a couple secret service agents cuz that’s where Biden was arriving. They were good guys.

It should also be emphasized that a majority of Americans now disapprove of Israel’s conduct in the war. It should come as no surprise that this is manifesting on college campuses in such a manner. Especially when it’s the end of the semester and participation sounds a whole hell of a lot better than studying for finals.

The AP article you cited also details many involved in the protests explicitly denouncing what you’re concerned about. Sure. So? Why should that stop the elements that aren’t problematic? You started this off by saying you didn’t understand why they were protesting because the US wasn’t directly involved in the war. It’s telling that your argument has gone far afield of that since.

…And where are you seeing the organizers of these protests supporting Hamas? This is classic straw manning. To your broader point, do I suspect pro-Palestinian protests to directly affect policy change? Nope, absolutely not. But you can say that about most protest movements. Based on your logic, the people that participated in the Women’s March, or March For Our Lives, or the host of climate change protests, all should have just stayed home. The impact of most protest movements is an attempt to shift public opinion and - more importantly - politically engage those that otherwise wouldn’t be.

Again:

Dude, read the post you’re responding to: Ironically, it’s your perspective here that lacks nuance in erroneously assuming pro-Palestine = pro-Hamas.

This is ascribing motives to the protesters that the vast majority of which do not share. And frankly buying into a concerted effort to delegitimize any pro-Palestinian sentiment. Protesting against the indiscriminate violence perpetrated on Palestinians does not necessarily mean support for Hamas. This is like saying since there was looting and property damage during the George Floyd protests, that’s all the protesters were interested in.

Sure…due to the decades of support the US has already provided them. I’m not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the protests. Indeed, my immediate concern is how similar efforts may impede my ability to do my job today and at least already has fucked up my parking. But the logic of the protesters is really not hard to understand unless you’re entirely new to protesting.

Perhaps because the US just passed a bill providing $17 billion to Israel to fund the war effort? Anyway, here’s an article on what Z was talking about last night.

Trump doubles down on Mike Johnson after foreign aid vote. Obviously, Trump could change his mind tomorrow. But as long as he’s backing Johnson I don’t see Greene even forcing a vote.

Well, pretty sure they can grant the acting Speaker more abilities if a majority wants to. Regardless, this seems to be over-extending the hypothetical. If Johnson is sacked, it’s going to be fairly soon. While I agree it will probably take awhile to settle on a replacement (or simply restore Johnson if he doesn’t bow out like McCarthy did), I sincerely doubt they’ll go without a Speaker for, like, five months.

Yeah, they’re going to pass a CR there like they always do that close to an election. If the House GOP shuts down the government a month away from the election, Speaker or not? I suppose it’s possible nut that’s all electoral upside for Biden and the Dems, which is why I didn’t mention it.

Fair point. It’s certainly concerning on a basic governing level not to have a Speaker at all. But that’s on the Republicans. Also, even in October they did designate Pat McHenry acting Speaker.

Another utility example would be electric. Companies often have functional monopolies within a city/urban area here in the states as I watch my monthly bill fluctuate wildly seemingly without reason.

Fair point.

Not a 1 to 1 comparison but big banks/financial institutions come to mind. Also, airlines.

Only if that indebtedness could be of use. Like I said, the House is pretty much done for the year at this point, so there’s really nothing to gain. As for the Speaker’s role in certification, that’s something to consider. But thing is, certification takes place right after the new Congress starts at the beginning of January 2025. It’s pretty clear Johnson is going to be replaced after the election one way or another anyway. And it’s quite possible Hakeem Jeffries will be Speaker once we get to certification. As for the line of succession, I guess, but that’s pretty morbid and extraordinarily unlikely.

The issue even fellow Freedom Caucus members have expressed is there is no clear replacement that could get the requisite votes. Thus, the Republicans would be in store for another weeks long process with a host of candidates getting voted down. Frankly, from a political standpoint, the Dems should encourage this. It’d be the second such embarrassment for the House GOP in six months. Plus, the legislative portion of this session is functionally over, so it really doesn’t matter who is Speaker. The reason Dems still might save Johnson is out of actual genuine goodwill - I know, that seems insane in this day and age. Plus, a number already said they would. Funny thing is, they might not be able to save him. It’s quite possible support from Dems could lead to an even bigger revolt among MAGA.

Nope, expanded access.

Well, considering he is aware I post on this forum, he’d probably punch me in the face.

Just as an example, my dad has gone through a number of experimental treatments and procedures over the last eighteen months in an effort to improve his very serious heart condition. I can only imagine his reaction - as a PhD in Physiology from Berkeley with a half century of experience in medical research - if he was told those treatments weren’t available to him because the government does not have “strong” evidence supporting their effects. Then again, his reaction would be so vehement it’d may well kill him. So, problem solved I guess.

Yeah. And as I tried to express in the UK thread, the idea that the only treatments that should be allowed are those with “strong” evidence supporting their long term effects would be..severely limiting across all of medicine.

I gave you my opinion. Obviously, I’d disagree with the opposite opinion.

I don’t think the government should be banning medical treatments and/or procedures just because there is not determinative evidence on its long term effects, no. Absolutely not. Taken to its logical conclusion, this would disallow any experimental treatments. Because the only way to provide the data for “strong” or “conclusive” evidence is to, ya know, conduct the treatments. And in many cases, including this one, having to wait years or even decades to fully understand the long term effects. Further, call me crazy, but I still think medical decisions should be between the doctor, the parents, and the child, NOT the government. Does that mean there should be much more care before permanent physical procedures for adolescents? Yes, absolutely. But again, not a big fan of politicians legislating this - if only because they rarely have any idea what the fuck they’re talking about even if they don’t have a political agenda.