Talk politics here.
The Politics Thread
- This topic has 1,000 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by
.
Author
-
t’s an interesting area. I think it is important not to be tempted into black and white views here, as you say criticising US policy doesn’t mean Assad and Putin are good guys. As the Carrier catchphrase goes, it can be two things.
At the same time, our perspective is pretty skewwed. If you compared the number of people the US Government has directly killed or harmed through military and intelligence action to what Russia has been responsible for in all the years Putin has been in power, the corpses on the American side of the scale would be pretty staggering. And that’s just people outside the United States. At least when Putin has somebody assassinated, he denies it, while the US leaders broadcast it on the next morning’s news cycle.
<span style=”color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;”>On the other hand there is a general drift towards it in the tech we use. Apple’s latest thing to combat child pornography very much seems to overstep the line in being able to access everything you have. Nobody rational wants child porn but surrendering more and more privacy to do that is a slippery slope. Governments push for more access into those systems, I can’t message a friend of mine who moved to work in the UAE on whatsapp anymore as it’s banned because they don’t like its encryption policies. They want to be able to read his messages.</span>
More to the point, the question really is whether these encroachments on privacy actually achieve anything other than bolster the power and reach of the governments. CP and drugs, terrorism and ransom hacks and just about anything surveillance is supposed to prevent is just on the rise. If anything, regular people are turning to the criminals for the tools to neutralize the surveillance.
One of the things that bothers me is the idea that Taliban are an Islamic militia or political organization rather than a terrorist organization. The Taliban was the most deadly terrorist group in 2019, with 1,375 terrorist attacks. They just don’t do attacks in Western countries and they don’t kill Western civilians, they do it in Afghanistan. So it doesn’t make the news here.
The IRA was a terrorist organization. The PLO was a terrorist organization. Gandhi and Mandala were terrorists. The Viet Cong were certainly terrorists.
Now, imagine that the British Army had managed to completely defeat and eradicate Irish terrorists in the 1980’s. Would that have really solved the political problems of Northern Ireland? Was that the real problem – the IRA? Of course not. The Viet Cong were killing Vietnamese and Americans because the Americans were there killing Vietnamese and supporting a government that was terrorizing, torturing and killing their own citizens as well. Once the Americans left, the violence didn’t end for a while, but the country eventually stabilized.
No one just decides one day they are going to drive a car packed with dynamite into a building. The explosion at the Kabul airport yesterday was committed, supposedly, by a group of terrorists that are enemies with both the Taliban and Al Qaida.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
It probably isn’t. When there has been a resolution to any of those issues it has essentially come from dialogue.
It always hit me from the start with the ‘war against terror’ that it was unwinnable because of Northern Ireland. That was a situation on essentially home ground. The British government controlled everything, the police, the army, transport, border control, the postal and telecoms systems. They erected watchtowers on the streets, checkpoints at roads and they still couldn’t stop the attacks, they didn’t even slow them down as the rate and impact increased into the 1980s.
So what hope would anyone have in another country and culture thousands of miles away?
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
It probably isn’t. When there has been a resolution to any of those issues it has essentially come from dialogue.
It always hit me from the start with the ‘war against terror’ that it was unwinnable because of Northern Ireland. That was a situation on essentially home ground. The British government controlled everything, the police, the army, transport, border control, the postal and telecoms systems. They erected watchtowers on the streets, checkpoints at roads and they still couldn’t stop the attacks, they didn’t even slow them down as the rate and impact increased into the 1980s.
So what hope would anyone have in another country and culture thousands of miles away?
I admit I know next to nothing about Northern ireland, but I am a bit uncomfortable with the comparison with something like the Taliban. It seems to me the IRA had at least legitimate grievances, and they could be adressed politically and democratically with the Good Friday agreement. I doubt the Taliban can be dealt with in a similar way, you either fight them or give in to all their demands. Never mind ISIS.
There are people in the UK to this very day who insist they still need to be fighting the IRA.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
I admit I know next to nothing about Northern Ireland, but I am a bit uncomfortable with the comparison with something like the Taliban. It seems to me the IRA had at least legitimate grievances, and they could be addressed politically and democratically with the Good Friday agreement. I doubt the Taliban can be dealt with in a similar way, you either fight them or give in to all their demands. Never mind ISIS.
A bit of the problem is that the United States absolutely does not have any legitimate authority to be in Afghanistan or to have any influence over Afghani politics or to negotiate with any political factions there. Or Syrian or Iranian or Iraqi for that matter. At least in Northern Ireland there are unionists that remain loyal to the UK and Britain. There are no Afghanis or Syrians or Iraqis that are in any way American and, honestly, they’d have to be idiots to have any loyalty to the United States or any of our allies considering how the Western nations consistently use and discard anyone they work with in these regions.
Fortunately, as far as the leaders that get propped up, most of them are just gangsters anyway – just like the leaders our enemies prop up when they do what we do – but the leaders usually find asylum over here no matter how bad they were. I feel tragically sorry for all the ordinary everyday workers that buy into the “nation building,” “freedom and democracy for all” B.S. and then get left to deal with the consequences when the U.S. decides it’s not in our interest anymore.
The future is impossible to predict, but I could see this terrorist attack being useful actually in opening a door for the US to ally with the Taliban (and ironically, the Al Qaida sects within the Taliban) against this “ISIS K” group (that no one really heard about until yesterday). Just looking at the initial narrative, and I could be wrong of course or misinterpreting it, it seems like there is a shift away from the idea that the Taliban are “terrorists” to the idea that the Taliban are a buffer against the “real” terrorists.
It would not be out of character when you look at the nationalists groups in the Ukraine and the rebel groups in the Syrian civil war that the US government supported and armed through covert and overt action. They seem to have a knack for finding the worst people possible to do their dirty work.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
The question is wether America was ever serious about wanting human rights and democracy.
The answer is they weren’t. Ever.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
That’s my point though. They were called terrorists by the powers that were actually committing real terrorism to prevent them from achieving any political aims. Gandhi and Mandala were part of the organizations that were blamed for ALL the violence, so they were spreading terror among the populace. Nothing is as violent as a military invasion and occupation, but the United States claims to be fighting the “terrorists” to justify it.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
…but I think the Taliban never had wide political support in Afghanistan.
Until the United States invaded and occupied the country, that is.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Gandhi and Mandala were terrorists.
Based on what definition of terrorism? The common definition of “terrorism” is “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”
They were revolutionaries, certainly, but terrorists? I’m not convinced.
Mandela was imprisoned because he founded a militant group that conducted a campaign of sabotage against the South African Government. It’s not inaccurate to call him a terrorist.
Ghandi’s relationship to violence was more like MLK, where his message was more “you will deal with me and my non-violent campaign, or you will deal with someone else’s violent campaign”, and it’s more of a reach to call him a terrorist, but people get called that today for similar rhetoric. Hell, MLK was called a terrorist in his day.
The problem is the implication that terrorist is automatically a bad thing and the people who do a terrorism are inherently bad. And this is something of a rhetorical trap. Terrorism is far from an ideal way to achieve your agenda, but it’s effective. I’d argue that Mandela was morally correct to lead a sabotage campaign, even if it was ethically questionable. Same with, say the IRA, though their moral justification waned as time went by.
-
-
As opposed to the United States that bombed civilians and tortured prisoners and supported a government that obviously was even less popular than the Taliban. My point isn’t that the Taliban is good – however, it is a political group and it is part of the people of that region. What I don’t see is that there is any alternative to the Taliban that would be better or have more support. Even if they have 10% of the support of the Afghan population, apparently no other group has more than 10% or the Taliban would not have rolled over the country so quickly.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Based on what definition of terrorism? The common definition of “terrorism” is “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” They were revolutionaries, certainly, but terrorists? I’m not convinced.
Mandala founded uMkhonto we Sizwe, which was the arm of the ANC responsible for multiple bombings. Their stated aim was to bomb government property without bloodshed, but much blood, including civilian blood, was in fact shed by numerous bombing campaigns.
Their biggest “success” was the Church Street bombing that killed 19 and wounded over 200 people. They claimed they were only trying to blow up the air force headquarters that was on the street. But timing it to blow up during rush hour on a city street isn’t a good way to avoid civilian casualties. Maybe they were just incompetent planners, but it looks a bit like deliberate terrorism to me.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Well that’s my point too I guess, I am not saying that what the US did was good, obviously in the end it proved futile. However if the US was evil in what they did there, then certainly the Taliban are also still a bunch of goddamn psychopaths with no mandate whatsoever to govern Afghanistan.
By that rationale there are very few nations who’s founding factions that had no mandate to govern
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
I admit I know next to nothing about Northern ireland, but I am a bit uncomfortable with the comparison with something like the Taliban. It seems to me the IRA had at least legitimate grievances, and they could be adressed politically and democratically with the Good Friday agreement. I doubt the Taliban can be dealt with in a similar way, you either fight them or give in to all their demands.
That could well be true but it doesn’t detract from my main point which less about that and more the ability to actually stop it that you questioned. That essentially you can’t win that kind of scenario.
If the UK couldn’t prevent terror attacks on their own patch with all that local knowledge and control then how could it work in Afghanistan or Iraq?
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
Well that’s my point too I guess, I am not saying that what the US did was good, obviously in the end it proved futile. However if the US was evil in what they did there, then certainly the Taliban are also still a bunch of goddamn psychopaths with no mandate whatsoever to govern Afghanistan.
By that rationale there are very few nations who’s founding factions that had no mandate to govern
Well, I agree. The only mandate to govern comes from the will of the people, the democratic process and respect for human rights.
I think most or all nations used to be ruled at least in the past on the principle of rule by might, but rule by consent is more just.
You’re missing the point – most modern nations were founded in war. like 105 years ago my great-grandfather was shooting at members of the British Army – he was engaging in violence that had he and his comrades labelled as violent primitives. Do he and his comrades’ descendents not have a mandate to self-governance because the foundation of the nation was literal centuries of violence, which continues sporadically to this day?
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 8 months ago by .
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 8 months ago by
-
-
-
-
And, much as everyone would like it to be, it’s not over either. Maybe sleeping, but a load of morons keep kicking it to wake it up.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Basically, on January 6th two Black men saved this country from a terrorist attack on the US Capitol. pic.twitter.com/GwTc6TlKbK
— YardySpice 🇯🇲 🇺🇸 (@ABlackTweeter) August 27, 2021
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
Except that the 20th/21st century history of violence in Ireland includes a brutal civil war, and multiple lengthy terrorist campaigns that targeted people that both sides counted as their fellow citizens.
Most of it is still fallout from the 19th and early 20th century imperialism with the former colonial powers trying to enforce a map their ancestors carved up a century or more ago.
“Nation building” is to”colonialism” what “Climate Change” is to “Global Warming.” Same thing, but sounds nicer.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
Not surprised.
It figures.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Well, if Ashli Babbit had proper respect for the law, she wouldn’t have been shot.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I agree, you can’t win by force alone. In the end you need some kind of political or social process to stop it. But when it comes to the ideology behind the Taliban and ISIS, I don’t know if that’s possible.
At the same time, where are you getting your information? From the Taliban or even a neutral party or from their enemies, i.e. our governments who’ve occupied Afghanistan for twenty years and have been lying to us about it every time they opened their mouths?
I agree – your points are valid that there needs to be a political, social and diplomatic strategy to stop the violence and bring people to a new stable and sustainable point (that will inevitably deteriorate). Like Lorcan and Garjones are pointing out – from experience – if everyone only believed what the British government and army said about the IRA and Irish republicans, we’d still have bombings from London to York today.
However, the United States and the Western Powers are obviously not the people who will bring about any sort of lasting peace and stability in Afghanistan. They have no clue how the society works any more than any of us do, but they’ll happily pay themselves and their campaign funders a trillion hot-off-the-press dollars to magically conjure a functioning Western style, egalitarian democratic system in a civil war torn Muslim world. And then they’ll change the narrative as soon as they find some other mess to graft a few billion more off of.
Again, the primary interests of the Western efforts are market driven. It’s like the entire diplomatic and military industry is invested in selling nations a “live action” version of the game of Risk where every piece on the board represents a thriving mercantile center of protected taxpayer supported funds funneled straight into tax havens and shell corporations.
Literally no one is interested in the right thing to do, in peace, justice, liberty or equality. The news is shouting about the downfall of women’s rights in Afghanistan — something no one’s even had time to assess — but what about the simple human right of women not getting bombed to give some buoyancy to Raytheon’s bottom line.
Sure, an international political and diplomatic initiative — with real teeth — to ensure human rights in Afghanistan is obviously the best idea for the region, but where the hell were they when the coalition was over there? Where were they with Abu Ghraib or Oruzgan?
So, agreeing with the general good ideas of real diplomacy is somewhat irrelevant here. Focusing on the Taliban as “monsters” gets difficult when they are actually a very small group when the great powers of the world — often led by people we voted for — are rampaging across the globe rearing monstrosities in plain sight.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
One Trump elected to public office was bad enough. And I wanna say that there’s no way Trump could win in 2024, but I’ve long learned never to underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
If Trump runs he’s got the nomination wrapped up. And the general election will be close. Biden will be 82 and Harris doesn’t seem too popular. 2024 could very well be the year US voters give up on America. Because as hard as people fought against Trump to get a Dem majority, they’re basically squandering it. Again. TheGOP is still obstructing and running wild with suppressive bills all over the country while the Dems sit back and let it happen because of people like Manchin and Sinema. It’s exhausting and starts to feel like a waste of time.
7 users thanked author for this post.
-
Again, the primary interests of the Western efforts are market driven.
This element should not be underestimated.
In essence in 2000 before any offensives were launched Donald Rumsfeld revealed a new privatised system for the US military. This is where we start seeing stuff like Blackwater and XE and Burger King opening catering on bases even though that food is nutritionally shit and not what you’d want to feed an elite fighting force.
Rumsfeld and Cheney also held shares in these companies. Which they did eventually give up under pressure but 2 years in when they had accrued massive value.
What has to be noted is that any government has access to extraordinary amounts of money, we seen with QE they can just print it if it goes low. If you look at the richest private businesses in the world, say Apple as an example. A trillion dollar valuation is huge but that is spent regularly by G7 governments. Most neo-liberal policy is basically all about how to transfer that money into private hands.
You just need to look at the US health system. There is no logical basis to decree that works, it spends an enormous amount of money for a below average outcome. The government, ignoring any private and employer health insurance, pays 3 times as much as the UK per person and still doesn’t cover everyone. The only reason it is championed and supported is it also makes a lot of people wealthy.
8 users thanked author for this post.
-
We can just echo it with PPE.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
This sounds about right:
Joe McCarthy was never defeated — and Donald Trump now leads the movement he created
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
Any Californians here?
What’s the story in the state? I would like to know more firsthand from someone there.
Reports have it of a very scary situation of GOP Larry Elder (a VERY conservative man) will be next governor over this recall of Newsom.
https://news.yahoo.com/gops-larry-elder-looks-shock-170840084.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/08/gavin-newsom-california-recall/619848/
There are other concerns as the midterm is next year and as for the POTUS election, Biden is not getting any younger.
Add with it outright voter suppression laws, the “Jim Crow 2.0”, it doesn’t look good.
Be afraid… be very afraid.
-
However, the United States and the Western Powers are obviously not the people who will bring about any sort of lasting peace and stability in Afghanistan. They have no clue how the society works any more than any of us do, but they’ll happily pay themselves and their campaign funders a trillion hot-off-the-press dollars to magically conjure a functioning Western style, egalitarian democratic system in a civil war torn Muslim world.
Yeah maybe you’re right about that, I’m not sure. I just watched a great documentary called Afghanistan: the Wounded Land, they also made the point that basically Westerners didn’t know how to make it work. They failed to get rid of the warlords that tore the country apart before the Taliban took over, and were a corrupt bunch that got back into politics when America invaded.
Nation building is probably impossible, in most cases anyway. And probably not even all that great if it did work, would we want to turn Afghanistan into a copy of some Western countries?
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Any Californians here?
What’s the story in the state? I would like to know more firsthand from someone there.
Reports have it of a very scary situation of GOP Larry Elder (a VERY conservative man) will be next governor over this recall of Newsom.
https://news.yahoo.com/gops-larry-elder-looks-shock-170840084.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/08/gavin-newsom-california-recall/619848/
There are other concerns as the midterm is next year and as for the POTUS election, Biden is not getting any younger.
Add with it outright voter suppression laws, the “Jim Crow 2.0”, it doesn’t look good.
Be afraid… be very afraid.
I don’t currently live in CA anymore, but lots of friends still do (I moved late last year). essentially there’s a lot of voter apathy with regards to the recall election. The recall process is also a joke. A very likely scenario is that Newsome gets around 48% to stay and 52% vote to recall. Then Larry Elder might get about 25% of the votes and they’ll have a situation where the new governor ended up with half the number of votes that Newsome got. It’ll be a mess. I think lawsuits have already been filed to deem the process unconstitutional. Because how does it make sense that the winning candidate can get fewer votes that the candidate getting recalled?
That said, Newsome has screwed himself a bit. I think his approval rating it still decent, but he has done a piss poor job with fire prevention, for example. Which is currently at the forefront of lots of people’s minds as once again fires rage out of control. Even my parents are currently prepping for evac from their house in Lake Tahoe, NV from a fire that started in CA. It’s looking very bad.
My biggest concern with Newsome getting the boot is that Feinstein is damn near 90 years old. If something happens to her between now and the 2022 election then CA basically hands the GOP the Senate.
Aside from that, if this recall does succeed then I wouldn’t be surprised to see the complete weaponization of the recall in CA. Basically non-stop recall efforts until the process gets revamped or nixed entirely.
-
What is going on in Texas… that abortion ban. Wow
The SCOTUS not really interfering. Now there is blame with many going back the point of not voting for Hilary at the time (3 judges of the SCOTUS were appointed by Trump) and even going after the Bernie supporters who didn’t vote for Hilary out of spite.
Too much pointing the finger. Everyone is to blame for not getting on the same page.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Also beginning September 1, Texas now has “constitutional carry” which means almost anyone can carry gun. You don’t need a permit or training.
With this and the abortion thing, the Taliban has taken over Texas.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
What is going on in Texas… that abortion ban. Wow
The SCOTUS not really interfering. Now there is blame with many going back the point of not voting for Hilary at the time (3 judges of the SCOTUS were appointed by Trump) and even going after the Bernie supporters who didn’t vote for Hilary out of spite.
Too much pointing the finger. Everyone is to blame for not getting on the same page.
Using a heartbeat as the beginning of life is a bit weird. I think there is an argument for using the development of the brain and the enrvous sustem as that could even during pregnancy give rise to consciousness, and the ability to suffer.
-
With this and the abortion thing, the Taliban has taken over Texas.
One of our board members predicted a new American civil war a couple of years ago. I didn’t believe it then, not sure I believe it now, but I am pretty sure democracy in the US is in danger. Both parties (or at least significant factions in the parties) I think lack a commitment to actual democracy and are trying to gain control over the democratic process, basically turning the country into a one party state. And yet people seem to crave ever more confrontation, more hate.
It’s interesting and sad how this goes parallel with covid safetyism, and the reviling and dehumanization of covid dissidents.
-
So while access to safe and legal abortions are still a Constitutionally-protected right, the Supreme Court upholds a law that says any citizen can sue a doctor who performs an abortion, a nurse who assists the doctor, even the person who drove the pregnant woman to the clinic.
Yet gun manufacturers are protected from liability when their products are used to commit crimes including mass murder. George W. Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) into law in 2005.
God Bless the United States of America.
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
One of our board members predicted a new American civil war a couple of years ago. I didn’t believe it then, not sure I believe it now, but I am pretty sure democracy in the US is in danger. Both parties (or at least significant factions in the parties) I think lack a commitment to actual democracy and are trying to gain control over the democratic process, basically turning the country into a one party state. And yet people seem to crave ever more confrontation, more hate.
If there was a Civil War, who would you bet on? The people who take vaccines and wear masks during a pandemic or those that don’t? This would basically be the first War where one side just let the other kill itself off… and even then, they’d probably declare victory.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
I am surprised the Dems didn’t “groom” (for lack of a better expression) someone younger and promote that person as “up and coming”.
They did.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/18971155/00_LEAD.jpg)
-
Buttegieg?
Not a bad choice, but his homosexuality just wouldn’t go over so well with the people at this time.
Maybe Beto O’Rourke. Who knows?
——————As for the possible future civil war of sorts, white supremacist militias have been preparing for a race war/apocalypse for years.
———Let’s stop calling it an anti-abortion law and call it what it really is—#ForcedPregnancy
— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) September 3, 2021
-
-
-
-
-
-
So while access to safe and legal abortions are still a Constitutionally-protected right, the Supreme Court upholds a law that says any citizen can sue a doctor who performs an abortion, a nurse who assists the doctor, even the person who drove the pregnant woman to the clinic.
Yet gun manufacturers are protected from liability when their products are used to commit crimes including mass murder. George W. Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) into law in 2005.
God Bless the United States of America.
Thinking about this law, does any one know if there is a limit to how many people can sue the person in question ie can a doctor that performs an abortion be sued multiple times or by multiple people for the same abortion? And the $10,000 is the minimum right? I can’t see this law surviving beyond the first Republican politician who gets found securing an abortion for their mistress, secretary or daughter or whatever and gets sued en masse by hundreds of people for it.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
Well I still think democracy is preferable to other systems, but I do agree the American system is wonky. The last election certainly showed that. When you have Biden and Trump, you know somehow you’re not getting the best people.
Maybe you really think democracy is really better, but honestly, most people don’t think that way here. I live in California where the Democratic party dominates politics and government. Every liberal is quaking because they are afraid this recall might put a Republican in the governorship.
Democracy means that the people you disagree with have their interests and points of view considered in the government. But no one wants their opponents to have any power or representation in government. It’s about consolidating power and control not sharing and representing all the diverse views.
It’s unlikely that Newsome will lose the recall, but if he did, people are already calling the recall undemocratic because the new governor will have fewer votes than those who voted no on the ballot to stop the recall. No one on the losing side in that case will say “well, I’m disappointed, but a tyranny of the majority is not a true democracy. We can’t simply consider the numbers or we’re simply supporting covert dictatorial government rather than real participation.”
No one can really argue that America’s two-party system is democratic, but the advantage it has over autocracy is that when things go south, each side always has someone else to blame for it.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
I don’t think the concept of a recall is undemocratic at all. Honestly, if the last handful of years taught us anything, it’s that politicians can’t be counted on to hold themselves or people in their party accountable. So I don’t oppose the idea of a recall mechanism. But I think California’s needs to be re-evaluated. If a majority votes to recall, alright that’s fine. But none of the candidates should be able to win with 25% of the vote. That’s just a crazy low number to allow for the election of Governor of a State. You can fix this fairly easily. Either have a run-off election if no one gets a majority (the con is another election would cost even more money). Or just switch to ranked choice voting. Will the ultimate outcome be changed in either situation? Who knows. But at least you’d get a better representation of what the people actually want.
Aside from that, I’m not entirely sure what all the rules are to trigger a recall, but those thresholds should maybe be re-evaluated as well and made a little more stringent. Right now the only criteria I know is that they need a petition with signatures equal or greater than 12% of the votes cast in the previous Gubernatorial election. 12% seems a bit low to me. Do I know the right number? Not really, but still would say it’s worth exploring upping that number. Otherwise I would eventually expect (as I said earlier) just a complete weaponization of the process. Especially considering how polarized things are.
So yeah, not really against recalls as a concept, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be made better where they exist.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
Just because the rules were approved via a democratic process doesn’t mean they can’t and shouldn’t be amended. If we didn’t change the rules our society would be stuck in the 19th Century right now. And what’s wrong with a run-off election? Seriously, other than the added money it costs, what’s the draw back? Plenty of states do it. It just happened in the GA Senate elections. Why not apply that to this kind of recall election where there are 40 candidates on the ballot? Or, again, move to ranked choice. Also, I don’t think the people who voted for the recall would be that upset if they had to cast a second ballot to determine the winner. If their ultimate goal was a change in leadership, they’re still getting that. They already won, now they just have to choose between Candidate A or B instead of Candidates A through ZZ.
So as someone who lived most of their life in CA, I’d be fine with making these kinds of changes. CA is mailing everyone a ballot. Voting in CA is pretty easy and not much of a hassle. I always voted by mail when I lived there. It was easy. I’m also just a proponent of ranked choice in general. I don’t think either of those proposals are unreasonable or unfair to future recall processes in any way.
I’m not saying they should change the rules right now before the election. That’s crazy. I’m saying they should look into altering them a bit once this is over for future recall elections. The rules are the rules right now. Fair enough. But just because a process seemed good and fair X number of years ago, doesn’t mean it is good in practice. We should be constantly striving to improve our systems and procedures.
As for the Davis recall back in 2003, while it’s true that Arnold didn’t get a majority, he got 48.6% of the vote and actually received more votes than Davis did to avoid the recall. In a run-off or ranked choice there’s no real doubt Arnold had it wrapped up. So this would still be a different situation. That election didn’t highlight the flaws in the systems the way this one is because Arnold did actually receive more votes than the choice to keep Davis. Plus, just because people wake up to a problem later than maybe they should have doesn’t mean it’s not a legitimate issues that should be addressed. There’s a whole new generation of voters in CA that are too young to have experienced a CA recall election. Hell, I was barely 20 and hardly understood the process at the time. It was one of the first major elections I took place in. I certainly understand it better today.
Note: I also voted against David back then and wouldn’t have been upset if they used ranked choice or a run-off system back then either.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
So while access to safe and legal abortions are still a Constitutionally-protected right, the Supreme Court upholds a law that says any citizen can sue a doctor who performs an abortion, a nurse who assists the doctor, even the person who drove the pregnant woman to the clinic.
Yet gun manufacturers are protected from liability when their products are used to commit crimes including mass murder. George W. Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) into law in 2005.
God Bless the United States of America.
Yes…
The main social media comments and tweets highlight the inconsistencies and total hypocrisy of people and the laws. They said that the penalty of aborting if a woman is raped is worse than being raped. Also there are tweets saying that for those who say “My rights, my body” when it comes to wearing a mask apparently don’t feel that way when it comes to a woman’s decision about pregnancy.
I guess it is true what a member here said that the US has gone crazy. I would add that the world has gone crazy… although I believe with New Zealand the woman prime minister has done a great job in limiting the spread of the virus if I recall correctly.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Honestly I like to make the case for liberal democracy, but almost all countries except Sweden ahve sleepwalked into biomedical fascism. It’s just waiting for the first little creep to say we need to exterminate the unvaccinated plague rats.
Seriously, where the fuck are you getting this from? It’s utter fantasy
-
-
It’s just waiting for the first little creep to say we need to exterminate the unvaccinated plague rats.
I won’t be the first person to say it…
Regarding the CDC pushback on Americans getting booster shots, one of the experts recommending NOT getting the booster basically said that the current COVID uptick isn’t being caused by vaccinated people; it’s almost exclusively the unvaccinated who are getting the virus now, so there is no urgency among the majority of those already vaccinated to get a booster. If the anti-vaxxers are getting sick and possibly dying, that was their choice and I hope they die satisfied that they didn’t cave in to pressure.
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
Yep, the idea that anything needs to be done to those unvaccinated with Delta on the prowl, along with a new variant called Mu, which is crashing Delta’s party, is pointless.
When you have people quaffing sheep dip liquid while boasting they ain’t taking no vaccine, there’s nothing that can be done.
It also appears the sole medical study that backed Ivermectin as an anti-covid drug was a Wakefield-style cook-up! Why? In response to requests to share notes and data, standard science transparency, the researcher refuses to do so.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
It also appears the sole medical study that backed Ivermectin as an anti-covid drug was a Wakefield-style cook-up! Why? In response to requests to share notes and data, standard science transparency, the researcher refuses to do so.
Funny… That invermectin was mentioned by this conservative podcaster named Joe Rogan (the former host of that Fear Factor show back in the day). He announced publicly that he has Covid and is taking invermectin. From what I heard, it is used for horses and cattle.
Here is a little more:
https://www.foxnews.com/health/joe-rogan-covid-19-ivermectin-federal-warnings
————————
See…. people will go for this, the bleach and the hydrochloroquine that was uttered by the former POTUS but will challenge Dr. Fauci on everything he says and refuse to wear a mask.
-
A Fox News link Al? How can I put this? No, fuck no, no, no, god no, no. No.
Rogan is often a goddamn idiot with a megaphone and he is making a good case for why he is. But, he is free to deworm himself.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ivermectin-covid-study-suspect-data
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
From what I heard, it is used for horses and cattle.
This isn’t exactly true. Ivermectin is a neurotoxin used for treating parasite infections, and there is a human-friendly version that can be prescribed by a doctor. For parasite infections.
There has been some studies that show Ivermectin is effective at killing COVID in a petrie dish, but it’s generally agreed that the level you’d need to take to have an effect on it in a human is, well, fatal to the human. Because as mentioned before, it’s a neurotoxin.
The reason there’s such a rush on it is because antivaxxers started trying to get prescription doses from doctors, most notably a group full of COVID deniers and con artists that will remotely prescribe you Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine, but pharmacists were refusing to fulfll the requests because the people didn’t have worms. They’ve then turned to buying the horse paste and sheep dip despite that version of Invermectin not being formulated for humans. It’s the same way some people died from consuming fish tank cleaner because it had hydroxychloroquine in it.
-
Yeah, in order to stick it to Big Pharma by not getting vaccinated he is…. taking animal meds produced by Big Pharma.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
When you have people quaffing sheep dip liquid while boasting they ain’t taking no vaccine, there’s nothing that can be done.
It is ironic. There was someone who said that they would not take the vaccine before it was FDA approved. They got Covid and then started immediately taking all these medications that were not approved by the FDA either.
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
Yeah, in order to stick it to Big Pharma by not getting vaccinated he is…. taking animal meds produced by Big Pharma.
And I wouldn’t be surprised if it was made by the same companies making the vaccines. Also ivermectin, especially if it’s on prescription probably makes more money for the pharma company than the vaccine – vaccines are rarely highly profitable.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Problem is some very serious shit is resulting from this. People like Rogan will be seen as legitimising it. Like with prior instances, already overloaded hospitals in the US are getting people coming in with ivermectin poisoning.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Problem is some very serious shit is resulting from this. People like Rogan will be seen as legitimising it. Like with prior instances, already overloaded hospitals in the US are getting people coming in with ivermectin poisoning.
Oh, it’s worse than that:
Gunshot Victims Left Waiting as Horse Dewormer Overdoses Overwhelm Oklahoma Hospitals, Doctor Says
-
If not for viral mutations that will likely lead to more vaccinated folks getting seriously ill or kids who aren’t yet eligible to be vaccinated and people that medically can’t take the vaccine then I’d be all for letting people not get vaccinated and talk their chances with getting sick. Sadly these people put more than just themselves in danger. Some of them just to score weird political points against people who don’t want to play this dumb game.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
Regarding those who jump at the stuff not approved by the FDA and still refuse to wear a mask: I commented on this before along with all the conspiracy theorists, Flat earthers, Moon landing deniers, holocaust deniers, anti CRT curriculum, and so on.
This commentator once said in an interview on CNN that this country is stupid. Physicist Neil Degrasse Tyson and the late Carl Sagan both commented on how the education system failed a lot of people. (Or people failed the education system.)
We said before that the world is crazy.Anyway, my question is:
You get the feeling that a LOT of people aren’t too bright?
-
Problem is some very serious shit is resulting from this. People like Rogan will be seen as legitimising it. Like with prior instances, already overloaded hospitals in the US are getting people coming in with ivermectin poisoning.
Oh, it’s worse than that:
Gunshot Victims Left Waiting as Horse Dewormer Overdoses Overwhelm Oklahoma Hospitals, Doctor Says
Christel and I were talking about how overwhelmed hospitals currently are. They talked about how a man died from gall stones because no hospital could take him for emergency surgery. She said that since it’s the unvaccinated people with COVID-19 who are overburdening medical facilities, they should be automatically deprioritized in the event a more serious emergency case comes in.
This is going to sound cold and cruel and vicious but if you won’t get vaccinated (I do understand that there is a small minority who can’t for medical reasons or they are children who are not yet eligible) and get COVID-19, you should be considered a much lower priority than all other life-threatening emergencies. If that means a coronavirus victim has to die in order for someone suffering from a heart attack or gunshot to live, I am fine with that.
My compassion is GONE for anyone who refuses to get vaccinated and gets COVID-19.
And if instead of getting vaccinated, you want to take some potentially lethal, untested treatment for the virus, I say go for it. If you die, that means there is one less stupid person on this planet.
I want to get back to some semblance of a normal life and these fucktards are ruining it for everybody.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
While I understand and empathise with that position, I can’t help but think that these people are victims – of an education system that’s been stretched to breaking point and dismantled for profit, by a news media that understands they can say anything that keeps eyes glued to their channel if they’re legally an entertainment channel, and by politicians who care more more about maintaining power and fanning the flames of bullshit culture wars.
And I’m not going to both sides this one – this is almost entirely on the Republicans rather than the Democrats. The Dems are far too incompetent to do anything this insidious.
-
You get the feeling that a LOT of people aren’t too bright?
The problem isn’t what you start with, it’s what you do with it.
Too many in the US have been encouraged to believe seeking out knowledge or reading is not good, that those pursuits are too intellectual for Americans. It’s the Bill Hicks “what are you reading for” joke, played out millions of times. That whatever you know really is equal to anyone else in any field – so we see people thinking they know more about medicine than highly trained and experienced medical professionals.
I am far from ever being the smartest person in the room, but paying attention to those who are? I learn a lot, but to do that I have to be open to the fact I need to learn. If you go by my GCSEs then A-Levels, they’re nothing special, pass grades? Pretty much. But I found I got better as I went up the educational ladder, with the work I did at the more demanding post-graduate level being better than my undergrad work. Consider going further? I really didn’t like what I saw of academia at postgrad level, so no.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
If you’re taking horse pills, I feel for you son
I got 99 problems, but that ain’t one
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
While I understand and empathise with that position, I can’t help but think that these people are victims – of an education system that’s been stretched to breaking point and dismantled for profit, by a news media that understands they can say anything that keeps eyes glued to their channel if they’re legally an entertainment channel, and by politicians who care more more about maintaining power and fanning the flames of bullshit culture wars.
And I’m not going to both sides this one – this is almost entirely on the Republicans rather than the Democrats. The Dems are far too incompetent to do anything this insidious.
And yet, as is one of the battle cries of the right, there is the issue of personal responsibility.
As I’ve said before, I used to be a hard Republican in my youth. As I got older and started reading more and looking deeper into various subject matter, I began shifting hard left to considering myself very liberal. (George W. Bush and his shitshow also helped facilitate that shift.) As liberal as I am, I have not blinded myself to the failings and shortcomings of the left and the realities of politics.
That all being said, blaming education and culture can only go so far. These people have made a choice and they chose ignorance and fear. They have to accept responsibility for their actions and decisions. They could have done more to educate themselves but they didn’t. They could have opened themselves up and looked inside but they didn’t. They chose darkness.
We have all been victims of the failings of our various societies. The difference is some chose progression while others chose regression. Something I learned very long ago: Actions have consequences and every individual must accept responsibility for their actions, whether they be good, bad, or indifferent.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
At the same time, the narrative here is that it’s a lot of MAGA hat wearing hicks that aren’t taking the vaccine, but honestly I know plenty of Latino and black Americans who aren’t getting vaccinated. Some are young and just don’t think they will get COVID or that it won’t be dangerous if they do. Others just have a long history of government mistrust especially government led medical treatment.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
At the same time, the narrative here is that it’s a lot of MAGA hat wearing hicks that aren’t taking the vaccine, but honestly I know plenty of Latino and black Americans who aren’t getting vaccinated. Some are young and just don’t think they will get COVID or that it won’t be dangerous if they do. Others just have a long history of government mistrust especially government led medical treatment.
I understand that from personal experience. Christel and her family are Hispanic and it took some time for her and her mom to come around. (Her dad wanted it so it didn’t take really any kind of pushing.) Her mom’s mother died from it and saw numerous family members contract it but she still wouldn’t do it. I think the fact that a relative’s husband going in the hospital for about 3 months may have been the final straw to convince her. An excuse she would use is that she wasn’t sure how it would affect her body. She wanted to get blood work done before she got the vaccine to see where her body was. She is almost 70 years old and I think it was fear that kept her from getting it (her sister was also filling her head with conspiracy bullshit) but I think it was also fear that finally convinced her to get the vaccine.
Christel’s brothers also haven’t gotten it. Her younger brother buys into the conspiracy theories. (I had a mildly heated discussion with him to no avail. Christel even said there’s no point in arguing with him because, in her words, “he’s brainwashed.”) Her brothers also go to bars and shows and they constantly putting themselves and others at risk. Some of her older brother’s adult children have contracted it because they weren’t vaccinated. Those aren’t the only stories with her family.
I can understand reluctance and apprehension if we were very early in the vaccination program. But we’re not there anymore. Tens of millions of people around the world have been vaccinated. It’s safe. I can understand cultural and political apprehensions but again, that only goes to a certain point. After that, they are simply choosing fear and ignorance. And that fear and ignorance is making them not only a danger to themselves, but to others.
I understand them and where they’re coming from but at this point in our shitshow of a world, I’ve lost sympathy for them because they are actively choosing fear and ignorance.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
True – I just want to get it away from the general idea that it is driven by Trump and his supporters — ironically, Trump was taking credit for the vaccine before the election too — or a conservative only reluctance. Here where there is a strong progressive and radical movement, there is still plenty of resistance essentially based on fear of the government and authority. Fear that the government and authorities have brought upon themselves for decades.
Naturally, the only way vaccination resistance is going to diminish is if the pandemic gets significantly worse in some way. If we drag through a gradual period where it stays the same or just slightly gets better over the rest of the year, no one will change their mind about it because their risk isn’t increasing. Like with the global warming catastrophe or debt crisis and any other significant social problem, a sense of normalcy sets in until there is a massive collapse and disaster that wakes people up.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Naturally, the only way vaccination resistance is going to diminish is if the pandemic gets significantly worse in some way.
“The cow says MU.”
It may already be too late.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
True – I just want to get it away from the general idea that it is driven by Trump and his supporters — ironically, Trump was taking credit for the vaccine before the election too — or a conservative only reluctance. Here where there is a strong progressive and radical movement, there is still plenty of resistance essentially based on fear of the government and authority. Fear that the government and authorities have brought upon themselves for decades.
I agree. My railing is against willful ignorance, regardless of where they fall on the demographic spectrum.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I do want to thank everyone for their patience with me and allowing me to vent. I am not just angry and frustrated with the fear and ignorance surrounding COVID-19, but of the regressive and oppressive legislation (abortion restrictions, voter suppression, prevention of teaching critical race theory, anti-mask laws, and irresponsible gun laws to name a few) that has gone into effect in Texas. The level of bigotry and fascism is depressing and infuriating.
I want a better world and a better future.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
Your frustration is understandable. It’s been a rough year for Texas. Starting with the power grid failure. It feels as if Abbott has spent the rest of the year piling on terrible crap to help people forget about that. Of course, the truth is he’s just a terrible, shameless human being.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
And yet, as is one of the battle cries of the right, there is the issue of personal responsibility.
Oh yeah, but funny how that always works out to people who aren’t them need to be personally responsible, but they don’t. Or how they claim to be the party of small government but spend trillions on weapons and as you note, the new abortion restrictions in Texas. It’s almost as if they’re hypocrites or something.
That all being said, blaming education and culture can only go so far. These people have made a choice and they chose ignorance and fear. They have to accept responsibility for their actions and decisions. They could have done more to educate themselves but they didn’t. They could have opened themselves up and looked inside but they didn’t. They chose darkness.
We have all been victims of the failings of our various societies. The difference is some chose progression while others chose regression. Something I learned very long ago: Actions have consequences and every individual must accept responsibility for their actions, whether they be good, bad, or indifferent.
Oh yeah, I agree with this too, like they don’t get a free pass for their decisions or actions. Anders Brevik was radicalised by far-right rhetoric but that doesn’t mean he gets away with mass murder. Like, I sympathise with the antivaxxers on some level but on another, far louder level I want them to shut the fuck up, stop taking dangerous unproven (for this purpose) medicines, get vaccinated and maybe just maybe become better people.
At the same time, the narrative here is that it’s a lot of MAGA hat wearing hicks that aren’t taking the vaccine, but honestly I know plenty of Latino and black Americans who aren’t getting vaccinated. Some are young and just don’t think they will get COVID or that it won’t be dangerous if they do. Others just have a long history of government mistrust especially government led medical treatment.
worth noting that even with good reason in the black community to reject government mandated medication, the percentage of vaccine uptake amongst black people is higher than white in the US.
-
Regarding the lack of trust by black people of the government vaccine programs, here are some links of the history behind it. One of the reasons why there are some conspiracy theories in the black community.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/history/40-years-human-experimentation-america-tuskegee-study
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02494-z
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Vox did an article that was pretty comprehensive:
Who is not vaccinated in the US? – Vox
Regions where large majorities backed Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election have far lower vaccination rates than people in areas that voted for Joe Biden. The effect is visible at the state level and the county level, and it scales with the share of the vote. Almost all US counties below 20 percent vaccination rates lean Republican, and almost all above 65 percent lean Democratic.
But there are other fault lines as well. “There have really been persistent gaps between white people compared to Black and Hispanic people, with Black and Hispanic rates lagging behind pretty consistently across states,” said Samantha Artiga, vice president and director of racial equity and health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation.
At the start of July, the vaccination rate was about 15 percent lower for Black people than for white people in the US, and the rate for Hispanic people was about 3 percent lower. Asian Americans have maintained an even higher vaccination rate than white Americans, well above 70 percent of all adults. Recently, the gaps have begun to narrow, but disparities still remain, especially at the state level. As the chart below shows, Black people make up 12 percent of the US population but only account for 9 percent of people who have received at least one dose of the vaccine.
—
Income is another dividing line. Lower-income brackets appear to have a higher share of unvaccinated people than higher-income brackets. The costs of medical care, or the perceived costs, may explain why. People without health insurance may worry about getting a bill, even though Covid-19 vaccines in the US are supposed to be free. There have been instances of people being erroneously billed for their vaccines, and even people with insurance may be skeptical that a medical appointment could come at no cost.
—
There is also an age divide, with younger people being less likely to be vaccinated than older adults. That’s partly due to how vaccines were rolled out, with older adults prioritized for access, as they are at the highest risk for severe Covid-19. However, a vaccination lag remains among teenagers and young adults. (The largest unvaccinated age bracket is children under age 12, who are not yet eligible to receive Covid-19 vaccines.)
My personal experience has been that age and lower incomes are more common in the decision to refuse or postpone vaccination than race or politics. Many younger people of any kind don’t seem to feel any urgency especially if their older family members are vaccinated. While the strongest opposition is in tight pockets of the country.
“The group that really hasn’t changed over time are those in that ‘definitely not’ or ‘only if required’ groups,” said Kirzinger. “They’re largely white — there are loads of white evangelical Christians, they live in rural areas, they lean Republican, and they haven’t changed their minds.”
However, that naturally wouldn’t be the people I encounter here.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
From what I heard, it is used for horses and cattle.
I don’t know why people keep repeating this. It is also used on horses, but it’s very much also a medicine for human use, it’s just not indicated for covid.
From wiki:
Ivermectin is used to treat human diseases caused by roundworms and ectoparasites>. It was developed, primarily, to treat parasitic infections which were difficult to treat with other anti-parasitics
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
I imagine the makers of Ivermectin are raking in unexpected profits this year. And no way to really blame them for it.
Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic – Merck.com
Again, it is more ignorance than hypocrisy, but going from…
“I don’t trust Big Pharma and their vaccines. They’re just trying to profit from this mess they made up in the first place.”
To…
“Here, Big Pharma —coff! coff! — take my money please — wheeeeze…– on meds for parasites –haaack!– because some guy on the internet — Katchoo! — says it cures the Covid!”
Does not compute.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
I don’t know why people keep repeating this.
Because people are buying the version formulated for horses when medical professionals refuse to give them it to treat COVID. And you know this is the case.
