ThinkerX

49 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think the MAGA’s prefer angry defeat, to actually achieving some of the things (like border security), which they claim to want.

I suspect that myself. I seem to remember Republicans complaining about actually having to work the last time they held the majority in both the House and Senate. They much preferred throwing bombs from the sidelines.

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I imagine [enough] Democrats would vote to keep Johnson seated if only because the next speaker to appear from this Republican House members would probably be even worse (from the Democrat perspective). The only way to avoid that would be for some Republicans to break and become independents to strip the Republicans of the majority and undertake to vote in a Democratic Speaker. I don't see that happening. So I expect it will be Johnson all the way to the swearing in of the next Congress.

With a majority this slender, Republicans are just a couple of arrests or vindictive resignations from losing their majority - before the election.

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

.... “Beginning tomorrow, we ask that all candidates and committees who choose to use President Trump’s name, image, and likeness split a minimum of 5% of all fundraising solicitations to Trump National Committee JFC. This includes, but is not limited to, sending to the house file, prospecting vendors, and advertising,” Trump co-campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita wrote in a letter reported on by Politico.

“Any split that is higher than 5% will be seen favorably by the RNC and President Trump’s campaign and is routinely reported to the highest levels of leadership within both organizations," the letter added. ....

Next up, Trump takes that 5% (or more) from every campaign without their consent, even if they do not use his image or whatever. Because he is Trump. 

I saw a blurb about Russia losing a thousand troops yesterday.

I have also been seeing references to Russian talking heads on their state media alternately threatening to nuke Western Europe and conquer Finland and Poland (though they are seen as 'dirty' and will require 'cleaning.'  Additionally, they want to lay claim to Alaska, Hawaii, and California, though this was dismissed as wishful thinking. And I thought FOX news was out of touch with reality.

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

So Iowa Republicans want to pretend all that agriculture work is solely accomplished by native and green card migrants.

"Iowa governor signs bill that would make it a crime for some undocumented migrants to be in the state"

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/11/us/iowa-immigration-enforcement-bill-signed

 

This really is the heigth of hypocrisy to ignore who is hiring the undocumented and exploiting the cheapest migrant labor they can find to bring in the crops, dairy, pork, poultry, etc. that Iowans themselves have been long too lazy to accomplish without massive immigrant help of both the documented and undocumented status.

My question is why not hold the people responsible that create the market for the undocumented migrants? If the migrant can be deported for being here  shouldnt the lazy guy hiring them also be deported, he has created the situation ?

Iowans pretending they actually do the dirty, difficult, dangerous agriculture work, pffft, were 50 years past that.

Shame on them.

I have brought this issue up with conservatives in the past. Usually, they just sneer, even when I point out that entire sectors of the US economy depend on undocumented immigrants.  Some are amiable to the idea of greatly increasing the number of work permits.

Recently, on another site, I had a lengthy exchange of posts that went a little differently. He started with the 'illegal immigrants are dirt' bit. As before, I pointed out that much of the economy depended on these people and that if he was really serious about ending it, he'd support greatly increased fines and prison time for the people hiring undocumented workers. I also tossed in the increased work permits thing. His response was both chilling and refreshing.

He agreed that increasing the number of work permits would be a good thing. He was dead set against steep fines on those hiring illegal immigrants - because it would increase their costs. And to him, hitting those people with prison time was downright criminal because you just don't treat important people that way. But fining and deporting illegals - no problem.

He was advocating for a sort of economic/race caste system, which has been coming together for years.

At the top, a sort of corporate CEO caste, wealthy, in charge, and immune from legal sanction.

Below them, the 'Patriots' for want of a better, God-Fearing White Americans with just a few blacks and others tossed in. This bunch gets things like Social Security and 'Good' medical insurance and can escape a lot of legal penalties.

Below them are the...' Subject's,' I suppose they could be called. Minorities. Poor whites in low-paying jobs. Regarded as criminals. People who need to be heavily policed. Bound by the law but not protected by it.

And at the bottom, the illegals, devoid of even basic rights...

10 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Were these people not losers without weed? 

In my experience  the average person who uses weed does it to wind down at the end of the day, not sit around all day all glakey. 

One was a carpenter who had a successful business before inexplicably selling out and moving to my state. Now he does day labor.

Another was a kind of 'go-to' guy in the oil patch with several specialty certificates before alcohol started a downward spiral. I managed to land him a job flagging race cars a few times a month - which is the closest he's had to an actual job in years.

Another works for a construction company. He gets stoned when not working. 

42 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

@ThinkerX Enough with your tired old tropes. Seriously. I use about two ounces a month.

I think I might start pulling up facts and figures of people fucking up at work and killing their co-workers, because of either: a) hangovers from the previous night's drinking, or b) straight-up boozing while on the job.

Tired of this shit.

 

I described what I contend with daily.

10 hours ago, Zorral said:

You all don't understand my objections -- it's not the decriminalization of cannabis I object to. 

I am deeply objecting to the manner in which it is played out, degradation to both the sanitary and aesthetic environment by the unregulated, non-enforced mess that the politicians created because THEY DID NOT THINK THROUGH, that mostly what we are getting are these 'dispensaries', which are way over-priced, way under-quality, and even sell stuff that is dangerous, the hypocrisy that decriminalizing the selling in licensed dispensaries would lead to an oppressed and abused population -- who were SUPPOSED TO GET THE LICENSES, meaning those imprisoned for possession of say, a loose joint, whatever -- getting economically ahead when instead of working they were in prison. And then the state tax revenue, which isn't happening either.

Instead we've got -- NO EXAGGERATION -- 3, 4, more 'dispensaries' on a single block, which don't follow the city rules of keeping their storefronts' sidewalks unblocked and clean, lots of loitering with boom boxes playing, and driving out other, important businesses due to all this environmental mess making the whole street unattractive for business. Nor does it appear there's eve walk-in business going on.  So what the eff is going on?

Other cities have rolled back their decriminalization of certain substances too, because of the reasons above.  Their rosy vision of what it would be, replaced by something closer to the corners, failed.  Around here we have noticed that though they are trying to keep it on the down-lo -- this crazy saturation of dispensaries is starting to make beef among them.  O boy.  Just what we need.

 

My state decriminalized pot a few years back. There are two cannabis shops within a mile or so of me and four or five more within five miles - and this is small-town Alaska. I have not noticed an uptick in crime hereabouts. What I have noticed is a sort of drop in competence and a lack of motivation.

The one pot smoker needs to cut down four or five trees in front of his off-grid cabin, so his solar panels get enough sunlight to keep his batteries charged. He can't be bothered. Several times he ran out of firewood because of living in a haze of pot smoke. There is plenty of deadwood near his place, he just isn't motivated to cut it. The same thing goes for fixing up his cabin or getting a job that is not at the bottom of the barrel - no motivation.

Another one decided to play lumberjack, cutting up beetle-kill spruce (fire hazard) and selling it for firewood. That lasted maybe three trees. Firewood sells a good couple of hundred bucks a cord.

I loaned one of my junker vehicles to another cannabis user. The transmission line sprang a leak. Instead of fixing it, he just dumped in new tranny fluid for weeks, leaving a trail of red dots wherever he went. I had to pester him for weeks before he finally decided to fix it. That took all of twenty bucks and thirty minutes. Same story with the broken mirror. He smokes the stuff in part for pain relief - he claims it 'moves the pain sideways.' Maybe, but he has major short-term memory issues. 

And it goes on and on like this. The issue in common is they all use cannabis.

A few of them have tried to 'grow their own' - efforts which mostly fail because of incompetence.

6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

One of the things that has boggled my mind in recent years is that (unless the science is all wrong ), by making this about liberty, conservatives essentially guarantee that, in the near future, the extent of individual liberty will in fact be in question. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, in the sense that a simple-minded defense of "liberty" actually does end up making it the problem.

Wrong thread for this, but Conservatives are about liberty for themselves in a sort of race-based caste system, with the other castes being tightly controlled.

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So Trump has put out a video announcement that he is strictly pro state's rights when it comes to abortion, which means he's not strictly pro-life (or pro-choice). He's fine for states to pass laws allowing at will abortion, which is anathema to the evangelical / christian nationalist bloc, and he's basically stated a position (for now of course, which could change before or after his election) that there should be no federal law on abortion.

I assume it won't really damage him among pro-lifers, he's the Republican nominee and no one of any note is running against him with a more conservative position, they still hate Biden way more than being pissed at Trump not being as pro-life as they want, so I don't see it as demotivating for them to the point that they won't vote. I guess the question is whether pro-choice voters in swing states might be attracted to his side because he's kind of gone agnostic on abortion. I suppose if the state as a whole is pro-life it won't influence them, because only a pro-choice administration and congress can pass federal legislation to override pro-life state laws (if that's even constitutionally possible). If it's a pro-choice state such voters might feel less worried about voting Trump because they think he won't put federal abortion bans in place. I wonder how many swing voters there are who's main reason to vacillate is because they are pro-choice and were concerned about Trump's position on abortion.

Trump will repeatedly issue diametrically opposed statements on this topic and others over the coming months. He can't help himself.

Regarding service workers - it seems the minimum wage hike in CA to $20 an hour is causing major grief for workers and fast-food joints alike. One of many such articles:

California's minimum wage hike blamed for Fosters Freeze store closing down — worker laments she'd rather have the old wage because 'now we don't have a job' (msn.com)

I am a big fan of minimum wage hikes, but I see what happened in CA as 'too much too quick' - $1 a year is much more appropriate.

And there is also this bizarre (and deliberate?) snafu in Ohio:

Ohio warns Democrats that Biden may miss deadline for November ballot (msn.com)

1 hour ago, DMC said:

There is..a lot I’d like to respond to specifically.  Unfortunately I’m still being hobbled by the 431 mishegoss.  Plus I’m in a Chicago hotel that’s generally been pissing me off.

Anyway, the only way a third party emerges is due to one of the two main parties destroying themselves.  Again, the electoral system - along with the election rules therein - makes it rather impossible for a third party candidate to win consistently.

That goes for Perot too btw, even if he didn’t drop out then change his mind.

Two things I wanna emphasize.  One, each state can decide how they allocate their electoral votes.  So a PR system could be instituted at the presidential level by state.  Two, populism is not going to fuse the far left and far right.  This idea always fails, and is at least as hopeless as the “radical” centrists.

What a third party candidate should lean in to is being an outsider and a celebrity.  There was a politico article on this the other day I’m too lazy to cite.

Or maybe third parties should initiate major grassroots campaigns to build up a sizable local base. That, though, might see said base coopted by one of the other two parties, or targeted for destruction via a smear campaign or some such. 

'liberal fake news?' Had to delete the post

Trump seems to have lost his 'presidential immunity' defense. It is beginning to seem possible that Trump will be formally convicted and sentenced before the election...on some sort of charge, anyhow.

Donald Trump loses presidential immunity delay effort for upcoming New York criminal trial (msn.com)

ANew York judge on Wednesday rejected former President Donald's Trump's plea to delay his upcoming criminal trial until after the Supreme Court rules on his broad claim of presidential immunity.

Trump raised the argument in a March legal filing, urging Judge Juan Merchan to delay the trial until after the Supreme Court has ruled on the scope of presidential immunity in a separate Trump case dealing with federal election interference charges

1 hour ago, Bironic said:

Ukraine signed a new law lowering the age for military conscription from 27 to 25 and reducing the time of service from unlimited to 36 months. I wonder what they do when this war continues after 36 months…?

Possibly the Ukrainian leadership believes Russia will be unable to continue the war by that time - especially if they keep blowing up Russian oil refineries and the 'Russian Rebels' make a big enough pain of themselves.

4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Either there are enough Trump fanatics to drive the price up or there are some wealthy people who have reached an arrangement with Trump with respect to what he will do should he win in November and overvaluing the company is part of that arrangement.

Said 'wealthy people' are certain to get badly burned as Trump has a long track record of betrayal. I'm thinking more along the lines of a short-term pump-and-dump scam.

19 minutes ago, Fez said:

I do think Democrats are in a really good position to take the House back, and I think Biden is a little better than 50-50 to win re-election, but the Senate is a real tough nut to crack. Could Democrats get the clean sweep (minus WV) and keep a 50+VP majority? Sure, but I don't think the odds are in their favor at all right now.

However, if Biden wins and Democrats keep the House and are at 49 Senate seats, I could see a situation where Murkowski finally does flip sides in exchange for enough goodies and in the name of avoiding total gridlock.

But we'll see. I do think polling is basically totally broken right now, which is why I'm a bit more bullish than some on Biden's chances. But, without reliable polling, it's real hard to make any sort of informed forecast as to how things will go.

I figure the general election for 2024 will be a blurry carbon copy of the general election of 2020 - right down to control of the Senate coming down to a handful of special elections and an almost identical electoral map.

That said, after 2024, demographics and infighting will badly hurt the conservative movement. To me, the gerrymandering and voter suppression measures being taken by red states reek of desperation - note that many conservative policies fare poorly when the denizens of those states are allowed to vote on them directly. 

Given the trends in the last few elections, and that Republican incumbents continually push for policies that tick off many members of their own party, I figure the Democrats will retain their majority in the Senate and retake the House.

I also note that many Republican politicians seem to loathe each other more than they loathe the Democrats, making it nigh on impossible for them to accomplish many of the goals they claim to want. 

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is it a matter of time before the Republican Party splits?

More likely some sort of DeFacto internal coup.

To nobody's great surprise -

Texas federal court will not adopt policy against 'judge shopping' (msn.com)

GOP might be in serious trouble. Democrat wins deep red district on abortion rights and IVF message. I figure this has a good chance of spreading because GOP politicians will continue to push for horrible things.

Democrat who ran heavily on abortion rights, IVF wins Alabama special election (msn.com)

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

High pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI) detected in some sick dairy cows in Texas and Kansas, and maybe New Mexico. No evidence that the virus is likely to further jump the species barrier to people. Almost certainly wild birds carrying the virus pooping on the cattle feed as they fly overhead. Pasteurisation kills the virus so as long as you aren't big into drinking raw milk the risk of exposure is very low, even from milk from those farms, so long as you are not working on one of those farms.

I have seen scattered reports of a rapidly spreading disease in Japan, affecting mostly older people, with a 30% fatality rate. I figure it is only a matter of time before it reaches the US...

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Of course, with appeal and whatnot it won't matter as he'll be able to get 3bn in money in a few short months anyway. 

To me, that 'deal' is looking more and more like a scam. Trump's media outlet has been bleeding money from day one and was never valued anywhere close to a billion dollars. Plus, the whole NYC civil/criminal trial revolved around Trump falsely inflating property values. Might be interesting to see who gets burned when it blows up and what actions they might take.

Given the recent attacks, I am starting to wonder if Ukraine might not attempt some sort of invasion or major attack in Crimea. Keep Putin chasing phantom terrorists and militias, keep blowing up refineries so the Russian advance stalls with supply issues, and with Russia well and truly distracted, somehow land several thousand troops on Crimea. 

51 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

More incoherent than now?

yes. Utterly incoherent. As in not being able to communicate verbally,