Jump to content

US Politics: I Don't Like Mondays


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, DMC said:

And the committee intentionally scheduled them to start in prime time to try and maximize exposure.  They'll be carried on C-SPAN, of course, and I'm sure CNN and MSNBC will cover them (FNC, OTOH...)

The reichwingegop are ordered by their führerinfury to mobilize  their own versions during the hearings to distract the viewership and lower the numbers.  This may be easier to decide to do than to do?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/politics/donald-trump-preparations-january-6-hearing/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2022 at 11:49 AM, DanteGabriel said:

If this is another push to arm teachers... Well, as crazy as it sounds, the teachers at that school displayed more courage, intelligence, and care for the kids than their shithole police, so maybe they should have been armed.

I'm obviously not serious but this police department and this country's authoritarian gun-humper culture is so fucking upside down that farce has become indistinguishable from wisdom.

I one hundred percent get your point--so I'm just building on it--but I remember after Sandy Hook and they first started telling us (teachers) we ought to be armed. I was livid. I left the military and became a teacher because I never want to pick up a rifle/gun again. Now I'm in a profession that's being tunneled into becoming gun carrying security guards. 

Vice has a podcast and a few years ago they did some eps on how teachers were being armed (and it's really upsetting to hear how they're being trained by psychopathic military trainers similar to the ones who train police). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Fuck Jerome "wages are too high" Powell.

It absolutely feels like the oligarchy is trying to punish and scare people out of the recent shift toward better pay and working conditions. "See, this is what you get when you ask for more!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

It absolutely feels like the oligarchy is trying to punish and scare people out of the recent shift toward better pay and working conditions. "See, this is what you get when you ask for more!"

What is old is new again, "high wages push inflation upward".  Don't worry, Fox News is there to convince the working class they don't deserve a living wage.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Voters are polling that they plan on voting their pocketbooks in the midterms.

It's setting up to be a bloodbath for Dems as most of these economic trends won't turn on a dime and could be as bad or worse still by November.

And 80% say inflation, which is hovering around 40 year highs, and 74% say gas prices, which are nearing $5 a gallon, are important factors about how they will vote.

Ugh...people will vote against their own interests and the economics are sure to get worse if/when Republicans take over...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The damn inflation and higher prices were in the system BEFORE wages went up.

Are we supposed to forget about the $90 plywood sheets that were offered all year? Or even the dollar stores that are now the $1.25 store's.

Fuel increases have been a greater driver of inflation than wages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tree of liberty [to carry arms], has to be watered with the blood of patriots [and children] occasionally. 

Thoughts and prayers. Bless their souls for their sacrifice. 

Obvious disclaimer, because it's the iternet. This post might contain bits of sarcasm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m going to ask an odd question.  

Politically the Republicans get a gread deal of hay out of support for “abortion on demand”… many oppose that but agree abortion should be freely available in the first trimester.  Even the Mississippi law currently under review by the SCOTUS protects abortion during the 1st Trimester.  

As I understand it (please correct me if I am incorrect) most European States that protect abortion rights limit that protection to the 1st Trimester.  Assuming I’m correct about this factual assessment wouldn’t abortion rights and women’s rights be better served by focusing protecting the vast majority of abortions that take place during the 1st Trimester of pregnancy rather than fighting on the ground that abortion opponents love?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m going to ask an odd question.  

Politically the Republicans get a gread deal of hay out of support for “abortion on demand”… many oppose that but agree abortion should be freely available in the first trimester.  Even the Mississippi law currently under review by the SCOTUS protects abortion during the 1st Trimester.  

As I understand it (please correct me if I am incorrect) most European States that protect abortion rights limit that protection to the 1st Trimester.  Assuming I’m correct about this factual assessment wouldn’t abortion rights and women’s rights be better served by focusing protecting the vast majority of abortions that take place during the 1st Trimester of pregnancy rather than fighting on the ground that abortion opponents love?

Do you really think they will stop with the "abortion on demand" because of that nuance?  To me, this is saying it's ok that a few women unnecessarily die because the conversation would be less nuanced and might be easier to have, when I very much doubt it would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Politically the Republicans get a gread deal of hay out of support for “abortion on demand”… many oppose that but agree abortion should be freely available in the first trimester.  Even the Mississippi law currently under review by the SCOTUS protects abortion during the 1st Trimester.  

As I understand it (please correct me if I am incorrect) most European States that protect abortion rights limit that protection to the 1st Trimester.  Assuming I’m correct about this factual assessment wouldn’t abortion rights and women’s rights be better served by focusing protecting the vast majority of abortions that take place during the 1st Trimester of pregnancy rather than fighting on the ground that abortion opponents love?

First of all, the Mississippi law is an outlier from how red states will legislate abortion in post-Roe America.  The primary tack will be "heartbeat" bills, which are effective/de facto abortion bans (at least by-and-large).  Thinking the Republican parties in these states are going to stop at the first trimester is living in a fantasy land.

More importantly, I'm growing tired of people operating under the assumption the Dems "lost" the abortion debate in the court of public opinion.  They didn't, at all.  And indeed, the threat of losing Roe has led to the most people identifying as pro-choice since 1995 - and the least people identifying as pro-life since 1996.  Support for upholding Roe has skyrocketed more and more as it's become more and more clear SCOTUS is going to overturn it. 

In terms of campaigns and elections, the only way the Dems have "lost" on abortion is by allowing Republican presidents to put too many justices on the court.  Which, obviously, has a lot to do with a bunch of other things.  You could also argue the Dems "lost" on "partial birth" abortion back in the 90s and aughts, but that's really old news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

In terms of campaigns and elections, the only way the Dems have "lost" on abortion is by allowing Republican presidents to put too many justices on the court.  Which, obviously, has a lot to do with a bunch of other things.  You could also argue the Dems "lost" on "partial birth" abortion back in the 90s and aughts, but that's really old news.

Yes? I mean, the only way Dems have lost on abortion is by having that right taken away with no particular recourse for half the states in the US. They won the messaging war - so what? 

This might matter if, say, people turned out in droves to vote out people who were anti-choice, but they aren't appearing to do that nor have they done so in the past, which is why we're at where we are. Hell, most dems and organizations are specifically gearing up for a post-Roe world by ensuring people can travel to get abortions; that's a full retreat and acceptance of that loss. Dems won the messaging war - so what? Unless that messaging translates to actual power wielded it is the equivalent to thoughts and prayers. 

And Biden is doing a very good job of showing how little voting actually can matter even when they do turn out, so that's cool. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Yes? I mean, the only way Dems have lost on abortion is by having that right taken away with no particular recourse for half the states in the US. They won the messaging war - so what? 

So...I'm sick of people saying they lost the messaging war.  That was literally my explicit point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

So...I'm sick of people saying they lost the messaging war.  That was literally my explicit point.

I think they kind of lost that too, in that they made it unclear how likely it was this would go away and how important it was to shore this up. It was not something people campaigned on to any real degree on the democratic side. 

It will be now, but it won't matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

The tree of liberty [to carry arms], has to be watered with the blood of patriots [and children] occasionally. 

Thoughts and prayers. Bless their souls for their sacrifice. 

Obvious disclaimer, because it's the iternet. This post might contain bits of sarcasm.

Your comment reminded me of this (@ 1:20) most perfect scene. Two very different points of view on that. Two giants playing it perfectly too.

(Myself, I’ll take the Irish’s over Thomas Jefferson’s any day)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KalVsWade said:

I think they kind of lost that too, in that they made it unclear how likely it was this would go away and how important it was to shore this up. It was not something people campaigned on to any real degree on the democratic side. 

LOL, sounds like someone just wants to argue.  "So they won the messaging war, so what?"  "That's all, they won the messaging war."  "...Well, on second thought, I think they didn't!"

Anyway, I have seen this idea expressed here that the possibility of SCOTUS overturning Roe was ignored by the Dems and/or poo-pooed as a possibility.  I don't know where in the fuck that idea comes from.  It was very clear to everybody that Kennedy being replaced by a new GOP nominee would be disastrous, just as it was clear O'Connor being replaced by Alito and even Roberts represented an existential threat to Roe.

Leftists and even establishment Dems have been raising the fire alarm on this for at least 17 years in a number of ways - including, yes, campaigning on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Gosh, if you're a republican these days they won't even let you try and overthrow the government by force.  What has this country turned into?

Proud Boys Charged With Sedition in Capitol Attack
An amended federal indictment charged five members of the far-right group, including Enrique Tarrio, its former leader, with seditious conspiracy for their roles in the Jan. 6 assault.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/06/us/politics/proud-boys-charged-sedition-capitol-attack.html

The Committee Etc. are trying to make the hearings as much like a reality tv show as possible, to get viewers to tune in,  I guess:

Quote

The Proud Boys will also be featured when the House committee investigating Jan. 6 holds its initial public hearing Thursday night. The committee intends to present live testimony from Nick Quested, a documentary filmmaker who was embedded with the group during the riot, and from Caroline Edwards, a Capitol Police officer who was injured in an early assault that day said to have been triggered by the Proud Boys.

A least the language usage so leads one to believe.  I have read things elsewhere they were thinking like that.

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay people, there is other news out there, some of it of positive import.

First. assorted 'Proud Boys' got themselves indicted for 'seditious conspiracy' in connection with the January 6, 2021, attack on the capital. Keep that in mind.

Proud Boys Charged with Sedition in Capitol Attack (msn.com)

Second, unsurprisingly - as it would permanently cripple GOP efforts to claim the White House - Congresswoman Cheney, member of the January 6 Committee is at severe odds with the others over actions to take. Her opponent apparently wishes to dismantle the electoral college.

Liz Cheney fears Jan. 6 committee will 'burn its credibility' if it pushes for radical changes: report (msn.com)

In connection with the 'Proud Boys' article, I present this about everybody's least favorite (?) congressman fighting a petition to keep his name off the ballot. (My understanding is he lost that legal argument, but the article escaped my search effort.) I also understand (but again, cannot find the relevant articles) that claim similar actions are underway against other congressmen who supported the January 6, 2021, insurrection.

GOP congressman sues to block challenge to reelection bid | Courthouse News Service

Now, at this point, those putting the petitions against Cawthorn, and his ilk can point to the Proud Boy's indictment on 'seditious conspiracy' to bolster their case, which (where did that dratted article go?) already passed court muster at some level.

So, suppose this whole petition/court case thing to keep 'seditious congressmen' off the ballot lurches into high gear, bolstered in part by the Proud Boys indictment?

Top end, how many GOP members might realistically be charged? If all these cases succeeded (highly unlikely), then how many GOP seats would this open up and are any of them potential D pickups?

Also, if these court cases do ramp up, what are the odds of the SC entering into the mess with a bizarre 'shadow docket' decision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...