Jump to content

US Politics: Roe, Roe, Roe you’re gone? (Hope not)


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

I have to wonder if these chuckleheads, or something like it, will end up doing violence in Washington DC at some point.

DeSantis proposes a new civilian military force in Florida that he would control

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/02/politics/florida-state-guard-desantis/index.html

Quote

 

St, Petersburg, Florida (CNN)Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wants to reestablish a World War II-era civilian military force that he, not the Pentagon, would control.

DeSantis pitched the idea Thursday as a way to further support the Florida National Guard during emergencies, like hurricanes. The Florida National Guard has also played a vital role during the pandemic in administering Covid-19 tests and distributing vaccines.


But in a nod to the growing tension between Republican states and the Biden administration over the National Guard, DeSantis also said this unit, called the Florida State Guard, would be "not encumbered by the federal government." He said this force would give him "the flexibility and the ability needed to respond to events in our state in the most effective way possible." DeSantis is proposing bringing it back with a volunteer force of 200 civilians, and he is seeking $3.5 million from the state legislature in startup costs to train and equip them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

I have to wonder if these chuckleheads, or something like it, will end up doing violence in Washington DC at some point.

DeSantis proposes a new civilian military force in Florida that he would control

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/02/politics/florida-state-guard-desantis/index.html

 

A “State Guard”?  We have one in SC.  They’re very “gravy seal” in organization…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was inevitable, once you wiped the cobwebs from your face and considered the reality of the situation.  The wild hordes desperately searching for an orbit.  The media's obsession with iconography and cheap solutions.  DeSantis whipping the rabble into a lurching, haphazard beast.  

The Florida Man Army.

In hindsight, it was an organic reaction years in the making.

- Arch Lector Marco Rubio, notes from the Floridian Jihad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, 1066 Larry said:

It was inevitable, once you wiped the cobwebs from your face and considered the reality of the situation.  The wild hordes desperately searching for an orbit.  The media's obsession with iconography and cheap solutions.  DeSantis whipping the rabble into a lurching, haphazard beast.  

The Florida Man Army.

In hindsight, it was an organic reaction years in the making.

- Arch Lector Marco Rubio, notes from the Floridian Jihad

I see a holy war spreading through the states like an unquenchable flame. Dsan'Tis! Dsan'Tis! My name is a killing word...

(More of a movies reference)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the wonderful internet, one can pick a medication and see all the reported side effects for that brand. It is the same as the package insert but if it is online, it must be true. I think publishing side effects is required in the United States, but I am not a lawyer.

I know, I believe one of George Martin’s reading suggestions was “How to Lie with Statistics”. I wish it were taught in every grade over 6 th. It would be nice if the difference between all, may and some were taught with examples from current affairs. One person in a million may have this particular side effect, or most people may have it, or 20% may report it. ( could be a lot higher)Most people do not understand what a significant difference is…and science is based on that. It can mean a lot of people , on average, had a tiny effect( not all) or some people had a large effect, or it may happen because they tested something a hundred times and only published the study that suited their company. In the end, until we have something like excellent genetic studies, we must go with generalities and then hard core trial and error. But in the end, get vaccines because they have a great track record and people are watching. Psychiatric drugs are not as secure. 

I knew someone with a Ph.D argue that everyone is happier if they stay married. ( on average) Does that mean everyone will be happier if they stay married? No, there great reasons to divorce…, abuse, child molesting, fraud or can’t stand the jerkwaddle anymore:) Does it mean everyone should get married? No! He was saying yes because of statistics. That doesn’t pass the sniff test to me, which in fancy pants language that is Face Validity. Sorry, its maths.

Anecdotal reporting is very important. 

Hope you all(!) are well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

With the wonderful internet, one can pick a medication and see all the reported side effects for that brand. It is the same as the package insert but if it is online, it must be true. I think publishing side effects is required in the United States, but I am not a lawyer.

I know, I believe one of George Martin’s reading suggestions was “How to Lie with Statistics”. I wish it were taught in every grade over 6 th. It would be nice if the difference between all, may and some were taught with examples from current affairs. One person in a million may have this particular side effect, or most people may have it, or 20% may report it. ( could be a lot higher)Most people do not understand what a significant difference is…and science is based on that. It can mean a lot of people , on average, had a tiny effect( not all) or some people had a large effect, or it may happen because they tested something a hundred times and only published the study that suited their company. In the end, until we have something like excellent genetic studies, we must go with generalities and then hard core trial and error. But in the end, get vaccines because they have a great track record and people are watching. Psychiatric drugs are not as secure. 

I knew someone with a Ph.D argue that everyone is happier if they stay married. ( on average) Does that mean everyone will be happier if they stay married? No, there great reasons to divorce…, abuse, child molesting, fraud or can’t stand the jerkwaddle anymore:) Does it mean everyone should get married? No! He was saying yes because of statistics. That doesn’t pass the sniff test to me, which in fancy pants language that is Face Validity. Sorry, its maths.

Anecdotal reporting is very important. 

Hope you all(!) are well.

 

Again, these drugs are used all over the world.  You're talking about science and statistics but you don't actually have any to support the idea that they are causally linked to school schoolings.  Not that it shouldn't be researched but that's a hell of an implication to make without evidence 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

With the wonderful internet, one can pick a medication and see all the reported side effects for that brand. It is the same as the package insert but if it is online, it must be true. I think publishing side effects is required in the United States, but I am not a lawyer.

I know, I believe one of George Martin’s reading suggestions was “How to Lie with Statistics”. I wish it were taught in every grade over 6 th. It would be nice if the difference between all, may and some were taught with examples from current affairs. One person in a million may have this particular side effect, or most people may have it, or 20% may report it. ( could be a lot higher)Most people do not understand what a significant difference is…and science is based on that. It can mean a lot of people , on average, had a tiny effect( not all) or some people had a large effect, or it may happen because they tested something a hundred times and only published the study that suited their company. In the end, until we have something like excellent genetic studies, we must go with generalities and then hard core trial and error. But in the end, get vaccines because they have a great track record and people are watching. Psychiatric drugs are not as secure. 

I knew someone with a Ph.D argue that everyone is happier if they stay married. ( on average) Does that mean everyone will be happier if they stay married? No, there great reasons to divorce…, abuse, child molesting, fraud or can’t stand the jerkwaddle anymore:) Does it mean everyone should get married? No! He was saying yes because of statistics. That doesn’t pass the sniff test to me, which in fancy pants language that is Face Validity. Sorry, its maths.

Anecdotal reporting is very important. 

Hope you all(!) are well.

 

Isn’t there a separate thread for this discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

DeSantis also said this unit, called the Florida State Guard, would be "not encumbered by the federal government."

From where cometh, then, the funding for this force unencumbered by fed gummit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wisconsin Democratic governor vetoes restrictive abortion bills:

Quote

One of the more contentious bills, the Shield the Vulnerable Act, would have banned abortions if the patient makes that decision based on the sex, race or disability diagnosis of the unborn baby. The bill would also allow other parties, be it a spouse, partner or family member, to bring damages to court if they did not want a woman to have the abortion.

This kind of gives a preview of the stakes I was referring to if Roe is overturned in June.  It will embolden the GOP-dominated Wisconsin legislature to go even further, and then - if he has a brain - Evers can raise the specter during his reelection campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Wisconsin Democratic governor vetoes restrictive abortion bills:

This kind of gives a preview of the stakes I was referring to if Roe is overturned in June.  It will embolden the GOP-dominated Wisconsin legislature to go even further, and then - if he has a brain - Evers can raise the specter during his reelection campaign.

Have you seen anything regarding how the various trigger laws would work if Roe is only partially overturned? Are they still null in that instance? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Have you seen anything regarding how the various trigger laws would work if Roe is only partially overturned? Are they still null in that instance? 

I'm not sure but I believe at least some would not trigger if SCOTUS only "effectively" overturns Roe.  That being said, in all the dozen states that have trigger laws except Kentucky the GOP has a trifecta, so they can easily just pass laws to that effect anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What Roe Could Take Down With It
The logic being used against Roe could weaken the legal foundations of many rights Americans value deeply."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/what-roe-could-take-down-it/620892/

Quote

 

...  The thing is, the dangers of dispensing with Roe go far beyond abortion, because the legal logic that threatens this particular right could quite easily extend to others, inviting states to try out new laws that regulate choices about whom to marry, whom to be intimate with, what contraception to use, and how to rear one’s own children.

The contention that Roe is uniquely built on a foundation of sand ignores the inconvenient fact that lots of other rights are not expressly articulated in the Constitution. ....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

The Republican Party has them too.

They do not. Not only do they not, state primaries for Republicans are often winner takes all instead of proportionate gains, which also emphasizes plurality winners taking insurmountable leads. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

The Republican Party has them too.

Technically they do, but functionally the 7% of Republican superdelegates (about half of the 15% of Dem superdelegates) are identical to pledged delegates - they have to vote for the candidate that won their state.  The DNC's post-2016 reform did the same thing for 2/3s of their superdelegates - and prevented them from voting on the first ballot.  Which means at this point superdelegates are wholly a red herring.

The only impact superdelegates have ever had is the media irresponsibly counting them in the 2008 and 2016 Dem primaries - encouraged by the Hillary campaign to suggest, especially against Obama in 2008, that the superdelegates could flip the nomination to her.  But that was never going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...