US Politics: Rural Southernification… (thanks Zorral)

[Mindwalker]

Democrats need to stop being understanding and bipartisan with hateful lunatics. Start playing hardball. F*** Manchin. (I don't know how, but there must be a way to stop him.) And stop publicly/ privately cozying up to these people.

Stop whining about anti-voting legislation, ditch the filiuster.

Stuff your strongly worded speeches for the rights of women and expand the court.

Blue states, make laws where any taxpayer can sue people wearing/ shooting guns for 10.000 bucks. And people for not wearing a mask where mandated for more. Also, gerrymander the hell out of your districts where useful. (Save any attempt for bipartisan redistricting for later.)

Anything but rolling over and chasing that football.

And while I get that the DOJ is supposed to be independent, I don't get why he doesn't indict McCarthy for obstructing justice, for starters. He threatened companies who are providing communication records like a mobster.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

I cannot give you such an example, and to quote my first reply from the other thread...

So that's that.

The book I spoke of mentioned Pauli Murray and Martin Luther King Jr. as people who used this approach (though not only this approach). I would expect U.S. citizens be more familiar with their accomplishments than I am. You can decide for yourself whether anything of their approach is applicable to U.S. today.

How would “speaking to their heart” have helped in this circumstance?

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2360583239041/a-school-ordered-a-student-to-quarantine-his-dad-and-2-men-confronted-the-principal-with-zip-ties-official-says

[Mindwalker]

Apparently, Laura Windsor (who did that covert interview with Ron Johnson where he admitted Biden won) has Jim Jordan on tape, saying "I talked to The President yesterday, and he's going to announce." Not really surprising. Eat your heart out, Tucker!

 

[gruff one]

Tzargrey, I appreciate your attempts to have a discussion here. I think you asked for a better way for people to engage and got everything, but that.

Zorral nobody is trying to kill, rape, torture or deny you anything. Yes, you are annoying. ( living up to your moniker there common connie)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, gruff one said:

Tzargrey, I appreciate your attempts to have a discussion here. I think you asked for a better way for people to engage and got everything, but that.

Zorral nobody is trying to kill, rape, torture or deny you anything. Yes, you are annoying. ( living up to your moniker there common connie)

So, how is “reaching out to hearts” going to work when the people whose goodwill is being sought are behaving without rationality?

Texas just passed a law that allows private citizens to sue others for “assisting in an abortion”.  That is creating a bounty in all but name.  Care to explain how that is the action of a rational reasonable group of people?  

[gruff one]

Got nothing there for you Ser Scott, wish I did. A flip response might be welcome to the tyranny of democracy.

[Zorral]

TX has enacted The Fugitive Slave Law all over again:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/03/republicans-texas-abortion-right-democracy

All the shyte going on with the thuglicans and open carry of guns, no license, no training and point to anyone and accuse her of getting abortion, collect a bounty -- just never say the war isn't in progress.

Works well for getting rid of public education and health care.  People cannot carry out their work in these conditions.  Teachers are quitting, and so are health care workers.  Can't blame them.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, gruff one said:

Tzargrey, I appreciate your attempts to have a discussion here. I think you asked for a better way for people to engage and got everything, but that.

Zorral nobody is trying to kill, rape, torture or deny you anything. Yes, you are annoying. ( living up to your moniker there common connie)

That stuff about making an emotional appeal might work with family or friends or someone you have an established relationship with, in rare circumstances.  It's almost never going to work with strangers.  

TG's argument also supposes that we haven't tried that over and over again for years.  There's no emotional appeal to make to someone supporting or fighting for the Texas abortion law.  

If this method is so effective, why isn't TG using it to persuade us?  If you're calling for civility, jumping into a discussion to call someone annoying seems counter productive.

[HoodedCrow]

It doesn’t work with long time friends. Keep your powder dry.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

re: The Coddling of the American Mind per the last thread.

A truly reprehensible book that creates strawmen, deals in binaries on complex issues, and ultimately dismissed many of the valid concerns young people have. As a university instructor, I've certainly encountered students who are forceful in how they think things should run, and on the one hand, I'm a subject matter expert, so I don't like a 21 year-old telling me how to run my class.

On the other hand, these kids are going into massive debt, and the cost of college certainly does entitle them to some input at this point. When I am teaching a first year writing course that is required for all students, and lots of students are pissed to be in there because they don't see how it relates to their major, I want to say, "It's more than how it relates to your major. It's not a one-to-one transference of skills." But, then, I think: how much are they paying for these classes that don't directly contribute to their majors? This isn't entitlement in the sense everyone uses--this is a group a people who are going into massive debt, so college isn't about learning anymore, or expanding your horizons: it is a means to get a degree which will get you a job with a living wage--which, even then, jobs like teaching won't guarantee.

This notion of the Coddling of the American mind is written by a group of people who lived vastly better lives with better social support systems who refuse to acknowledge the massive decrease in quality of life in the United States. 

My son sent me a list of questions last night I had to answer for an assignment in his English class. Some of the questions were about the American Dream and equality of outcome. This concept of equality of outcome is, precisely, the issue. There is no equality of outcome in this country--it's a myth that ignores that all people don't start at the same equal spot in life. While the outcome may be equal, it is not equitable. This has been a growing problem for 20+ years.

The book, for those of you who haven't read it, is trash. We read it in our department because we were dealing with a tough cohort of students, and the book made me realize: the cohort isn't "tough" to deal with. They live in a country ruled by conservatism that explicitly is designed to help a few people and suppress the success of the rest. Pile the experiences of Covid in college, a reduction in college services with tuition increases--these kids haven't been coddled. They've never experienced anything close to coddling.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

13 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

A shocking turn of events that no one predicted, least of all Susan Collins.

Susan Collins calls Texas abortion law ‘extreme’ under more scrutiny for Kavanaugh vote

https://bangordailynews.com/2021/09/02/politics/susan-collins-calls-texas-abortion-law-extreme-under-more-scrutiny-for-kavanaugh-vote/

 

Poor Susan. She was just SO trusting of the process and not at all dishonest in how she responded to McConnell's ramming through of partisan judges.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

Looks like the reconciliation bill is being paused:

 

Well, Manchin's donors don't want it, so he will do their bidding.

I used to think that the threat of tanking the bipartisan bill in the house would get him on board, but I'm realizing, he doesn't even care if that passes or not. It's all theater for him. He likes the spotlight, he likes the money he's making for stonewalling Biden's agenda, and, oh, he's POS.

[Fez]

3 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Poor Susan. She was just SO trusting of the process and not at all dishonest in how she responded to McConnell's ramming through of partisan judges.

You're ignoring the possibility that Susan simply isn't very bright and/or is self-deluded. As far as  Republican senators from Maine go, she's no Olympia Snowe.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

You're ignoring the possibility that Susan simply isn't very bright and/or is self-deluded. As far as  Republican senators from Maine go, she's no Olympia Snowe.

Of course this is true. She could have truly believed her insane view that these justices wouldn't upend Roe v Wade. If so, things are worse than I thought.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Of course this is true. She could have truly believed her insane view that these justices wouldn't upend Roe v Wade. If so, things are worse than I thought.

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.  The Court didn’t rule on the merits of the law.  The Court denied a petition for a restraining order to prevent the law from taking effect, right?

While I do disagree with the Majority and think there is certainly the possibility of serious harm caused by the law taking effect it sounds like people are says “Casey” is no longer good law.  I don’t believe that is the case.  

The Court has yet to rule on the merits in this matter.  That’s coming.  A Restraining order is always a long row to hoe… this isn’t over yet.

I just confirmed “Whole Woman’s Health v. Austin” was a petition for injunctive relief.  The 5 member majority ruled procedurally it would not enjoin enforcement.  This will be fast tracked.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf

 

[Martell Spy]

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.  The Court didn’t rule on the merits of the law.  The Court denied a petition for a restraining order to prevent the law from taking effect, right?

While I do disagree with the Majority and think there is certainly the possibility of serious harm caused by the law taking effect it sounds like people are says “Casey” is no longer good law.  I don’t believe that is the case.  

The Court has yet to rule on the merits in this matter.  That’s coming.  A Restraining order is always a long row to hoe… this isn’t over yet.

The problem is the SC is allowing something currently unconstitutional to stay in place and real world harms to go forward. And by the way, the real world harms already started happening, with abortion appointments canceled, various people in fear, and pro-abortion groups going dark in the state.

Sure, they can rule against this state law later, but the court's reputation will be damaged in the process.

[Larry of the Lawn]

21 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Well, Manchin's donors don't want it, so he will do their bidding.

I used to think that the threat of tanking the bipartisan bill in the house would get him on board, but I'm realizing, he doesn't even care if that passes or not. It's all theater for him. He likes the spotlight, he likes the money he's making for stonewalling Biden's agenda, and, oh, he's POS.

Crazy that he comes out with this shit right after a hurricane causes billions in damages, from LA to NY.  

Why would we make a massive investment in infrastructure?  Not to mention that a bill like this dumps money back into the economy.  Surely inflation is less of a problem than archaic, failing, and disjointed infrastructure?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Well, Manchin's donors don't want it, so he will do their bidding.

I used to think that the threat of tanking the bipartisan bill in the house would get him on board, but I'm realizing, he doesn't even care if that passes or not. It's all theater for him. He likes the spotlight, he likes the money he's making for stonewalling Biden's agenda, and, oh, he's POS.

No, he thinks it's a bluff because doing so would be catastrophic for the party. And if he's wrong he'll get blamed, but he likely won't receive the majority of it in the national media. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

The problem is the SC is allowing something currently unconstitutional to stay in place and real world harms to go forward. And by the way, the real world harms already started happening, with abortion appointments canceled, various people in fear, and pro-abortion groups going dark in the state.

Sure, they can rule against this state law later, but the court's reputation will be damaged in the process.

I agree.  I’m simply pointing out this isn’t over.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I agree.  I’m simply pointing out this isn’t over.

But in the meantime laws like this will pop up all over the country and go into effect before they act if they don't do anything right away. And the court has no signalled with no doubt that there are five justices who are completely hostile towards Roe. They probably won't get rid of it, but I'm sure they'll make it toothless.