US Politics Vol. 6: A Song of Fire and Fury - The Winds of Midterms

1585961636482

Comments

  • Maybe the worst headline/story of all time:


    He knows he has an unusual penis. It has a huge mushroom head. Like a toadstool…

    I lay there, annoyed that I was getting fucked by a guy with Yeti pubes and a dick like the mushroom character in Mario Kart...It may have been the least impressive sex I’d ever had, but clearly, he didn’t share that opinion.

    Fuck. I just put mushrooms in my salad before I read this. 
  • cdrivecdrive Houston, TX
    Just in case you're not all the way caught up on the latest in shit-fuckery:

    • Traeyvon Martin’s murderer George Zimmerman has fans and they get him to autograph bags of skittles as he wears a confederate flag shirt with a confederate flag on the wall of the room where he is signing. 
    • Ted Cruz is mailing fake jury summons to the elderly in TX with envelopes asking for money (that goes to his campaign)

  • cdrive said:
    Just in case you're not all the way caught up on the latest in shit-fuckery:

    • Traeyvon Martin’s murderer George Zimmerman has fans and they get him to autograph bags of skittles as he wears a confederate flag shirt with a confederate flag on the wall of the room where he is signing. 
    • Ted Cruz is mailing fake jury summons to the elderly in TX with envelopes asking for money (that goes to his campaign)

    Pretty much sums up conservative America.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited September 2018
    cdrive said:
    Just in case you're not all the way caught up on the latest in shit-fuckery:

    • Traeyvon Martin’s murderer George Zimmerman has fans and they get him to autograph bags of skittles as he wears a confederate flag shirt with a confederate flag on the wall of the room where he is signing. 
    • Ted Cruz is mailing fake jury summons to the elderly in TX with envelopes asking for money (that goes to his campaign)

    See, the right-wing will call this a kind of "fuck the liberals" celebration, but that's not true at all. Wanting to spite a group of people who aren't even assured of watching and whose reactions you can't even observe? That's not the reason.

    That "fuck yeah, I do what I want" feeling? That's racial superiority.
    Deecdrive
  • cdrivecdrive Houston, TX
    JaimieT said:
    cdrive said:
    Just in case you're not all the way caught up on the latest in shit-fuckery:

    • Traeyvon Martin’s murderer George Zimmerman has fans and they get him to autograph bags of skittles as he wears a confederate flag shirt with a confederate flag on the wall of the room where he is signing. 
    • Ted Cruz is mailing fake jury summons to the elderly in TX with envelopes asking for money (that goes to his campaign)

    See, the right-wing will call this a kind of "fuck the liberals" celebration, but that's not true at all. Wanting to spite a group of people who aren't even assured of watching and whose reactions you can't even observe? 
    Right?  Being a total piece of shit to own the libs.  
  • JaimieT said:
    JaimieT said:


    I don't think it's poorly argued at all. I think it's well argued. I think some of the punishments would be difficult to implement, but maybe that's what you mean, that there should be arguments about how to implement the punishments... (Ah, I just read your last paragraph. It sounds like you think the argument is superfluous, not that it's poorly done.) 

    "...a lot of the problems that she points to aren't really about 'men' generally..." - She's talking about how men are the only cause of unwanted pregnancies, and how it would be more rational for the pro-life movement to push for legislation on sperm. I think it's a great idea to push for punishment for the irresponsible treatment of women's bodies and lives, and in some cases, abortions. It might be the thing necessary to get pro-life men to take a look in the mirror. 


    Her position doesn't address the underlying problems, it just shifts blame in hopes that re-contextualizing the problem will make men look at the issue differently. The argument that she's presenting isn't her end goal, it's a stepping-stone argument meant to lead us to where she ultimately wants us to go.

    My issue with that is that she's accepting at face value that power and decision making are the domain of men.  Broken down, her argument is "things are the way they are because men have made decisions that burden us with responsibility for the repercussions of sex.  If we want things to change, we need shift the burden back to them so that men can make new decisions that don't burden us."

    My point is twofold, don't make it about men broadly - you'll lose allies - make it about the puritanical people (mostly men) who think that it's ok for them to impose their religious views on women (that's the ultimate root of the problem).  Also, reject the construct that these people have the right to make decisions about your body...don't look for fairness by shifting the responsibility back on those men in hopes that they'll make empathetic choices - demand the right to make your own decisions.


    1)Well we've tried that for a long time and it isn't changing any minds. 

    2)"You'll lose allies"? That's rich. Again, as if we should be concerned about all of this being palatable to men...

    3) Pro-lifers are driven by one thing: ending murder. Giving them a more effective way to do that is a great idea.
    1) Maybe it's a view from where I sit, but I really don't think this has been done at all.  I think that it's the root of the problem and from the outside looking in it looks like everyone is terrified of even hinting at it - especially politicians.

    2) I think that you've misunderstood me, or perhaps I didn't make myself clear.  It's not at all about making it 'palatable to men' - my ultimate argument is advocating for a complete rejection of the accepted idea that decision making on women's health - and other issues - is the exclusive domain of men!  My point is that - for example - the most recent major public poll on Doe v Wade showed 71% of the population supports it - that includes (for the first time ever!) 51% of Republicans.  I'm not making a dumb/reflexive "not all men" argument, I'm saying that 'men' broadly speaking aren't the issue - the overwhelming majority are on your side - even Republicans! -  the problem is that 29% who in government have enough influence to shape 100% of the policy.

    3) Maybe this is crux of the matter - I totally disagree with this view.  I don't think that they want to end murder.  Most of them are in favour of the death penalty and they fanatically support every war etc.  If they were really about ending "murder" (I'm suing their term, I don't think that abortion is murder) then they'd be fighting for better sex education, they'd be in favour of things like condoms in schools, they wouldn't freak out at the idea homosexual sex etc.  but they aren't.  Allowing them to pretend that they're against "murder" frames the issue in a way that lends them a moral sense that I don't think that they have - I mean, who in their right might isn't against murder?  Hanging the issue on murder is the lie they tell us and maybe even themselves.  Their actual argument is against sex for pleasure, and that's why I think the article's premise misses the mark.  Shifting responsibility to men won't change anything because these people want there to be consequences to sex.  They don't want to prevent teenage pregnancy through education, they want to punish the wicked and make examples out of the sinners who have premarital sex.

    I'm on board with anything that promotes equality, I just think that the article misses the mark.  I agree with her overall aims and goals, I just don't think that her plan of attack will net the results that she wants.



    JaimieTTravistelephoneofmadness
  • Flukes said:
    The general lack of discussion about this is alarming....it should be one of the biggest issues in the country right now and it really doesn't seem to be at all.
    Travis
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Are there any good TV news sources?

    I've been traveling a lot lately and I tend to dial into a 24-hour news network in my hotel room and let it run so I can stay abreast of what's going on without actively plugging in. I consider my self pretty liberal but I don't like how editorialized MSNBC is, so I mainly stick to CNN since it seems closest to an AP news feed, but god there is so much garbage even there.

    I should just stick to NPR, but I like the visual medium in a low internet service situation.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited September 2018
    JaimieT said:
    JaimieT said:


    1)Well we've tried that for a long time and it isn't changing any minds. 

    2)"You'll lose allies"? That's rich. Again, as if we should be concerned about all of this being palatable to men...

    3) Pro-lifers are driven by one thing: ending murder. Giving them a more effective way to do that is a great idea.
    1) Maybe it's a view from where I sit, but I really don't think this has been done at all.  I think that it's the root of the problem and from the outside looking in it looks like everyone is terrified of even hinting at it - especially politicians.

    2) I think that you've misunderstood me, or perhaps I didn't make myself clear.  It's not at all about making it 'palatable to men' - my ultimate argument is advocating for a complete rejection of the accepted idea that decision making on women's health - and other issues - is the exclusive domain of men!  My point is that - for example - the most recent major public poll on Doe v Wade showed 71% of the population supports it - that includes (for the first time ever!) 51% of Republicans.  I'm not making a dumb/reflexive "not all men" argument, I'm saying that 'men' broadly speaking aren't the issue - the overwhelming majority are on your side - even Republicans! -  the problem is that 29% who in government have enough influence to shape 100% of the policy.

    3) Maybe this is crux of the matter - I totally disagree with this view.  I don't think that they want to end murder.  Most of them are in favour of the death penalty and they fanatically support every war etc.  If they were really about ending "murder" (I'm suing their term, I don't think that abortion is murder) then they'd be fighting for better sex education, they'd be in favour of things like condoms in schools, they wouldn't freak out at the idea homosexual sex etc.  but they aren't.  Allowing them to pretend that they're against "murder" frames the issue in a way that lends them a moral sense that I don't think that they have - I mean, who in their right might isn't against murder?  Hanging the issue on murder is the lie they tell us and maybe even themselves.  Their actual argument is against sex for pleasure, and that's why I think the article's premise misses the mark.  Shifting responsibility to men won't change anything because these people want there to be consequences to sex.  They don't want to prevent teenage pregnancy through education, they want to punish the wicked and make examples out of the sinners who have premarital sex.

    I'm on board with anything that promotes equality, I just think that the article misses the mark.  I agree with her overall aims and goals, I just don't think that her plan of attack will net the results that she wants.




    1. Man, I don't know. I've seen the "white men shouldn't be making this decision" argument my entire life, even when I was a fundamentalist Christian. What makes you think even if the right people haven't heard that that they'd change their minds if they did? Like they're gonna have some kind of "Oh, these men don't have any authority here!" moment? Speaking as an ex-fungelical, I've seen the power-holders and the power-supporters be told that power shouldn't work this way and it doesn't do anything. These people feel entitled, and often they are spurred on by Biblical arguments telling them they are meant to make these decisions. Everything is in their jurisdiction.

    2. I wasn't allowed to wear pants in public until I was 12 and switched churches. I was too young to be too in touch with the community's thoughts on the matter, but based on where these people are now... they didn't really believe this was the right way to do things. But they put up with it because the pastor was the authority and what he said went. Also 50% of them were totally unaffected by this. When the pastor preached this from the pulpit (I do remember that), they took it like they did everything else he said: attentive silence or "Aaaa-men," "Preach!" "Glory to God!" It doesn't matter what you really believe if it means losing your community, especially on matters that have nothing to do with the life laid before you.

    3. "Allowing them to pretend that they're against 'murder' frames the issue in a way that lends them a moral sense that I don't think that they have." - Okay, sure, but they say "murder of the unborn," as you know. "Their actual argument is against sex for pleasure" - It's very difficult to convince them of that when no one is saying it.

    It's incredibly powerful to use people's own arguments against them. The main thing that made me soften on the abortion issue is when I followed the logic forward. I did it in a cerebral, theological way. (I'm more than happy to share this if anyone is interested, but it's pretty Christian-y, and so conceptual that it doesn't work on most Christians I've shared it with.) The way the woman outlined here is legal, tangible. It's only as ridiculous as their beliefs are. So from a certain point of view, it's not ridiculous, it's not extreme, it absolutely should be implemented tomorrow because we should stop the American holocaust. The pro-choice movement should be pushing for this instead of saying "Well actually" as though people just fucking magically change their minds.
    DeeCretanBull
  • Old men of the GOP to possible victim of sexual assault:
    - You deserve to be heard and you allegations of being forced into a terrifying situation against your will considered
    - We has assigned a time and place, without your consultation or consent, to appear in a terrifying situation on national TV and be questioned with little preparation.
    - The witness to the alleged assault will not be asked to testify because he said he doesn’t want to.
    - Our nominee is already going through “murder boards” with folks including Bill Shine, someone who knows how to make these kinds of things go away, to prepare to further assassinate your character nationally.
    - We will not ask the FBI to investigate, or investigate on our own, in any way because we’re really in a hurry to deprive women of the right to reproductive choice right now and we might miss our opportunity if the inconveniently-timed election doesn’t go our way.
    - We cannot consider another nominee either for the same reason.
    - If you don’t consent, then your allegations will be ignored entirely.
    - In the mean time enjoy your constant harassment and the death threats, after all you asked for them by speaking up.

    Welcome to the kinder, gentler, GOP in the age of #MeToo where women can be heard as long as it’s in a manner and timing of old white men’s choosing, and if you don’t like it then you should keen your damned mouth shut.

    I hope Murkowski and Collins at least can find it in themselves to step-up and demand a reasonable deliberative process on this issue. They have the power to stop this whole charade.
    TravisFlukesJoshTheBlackMrXDee
  • NBC reports a classmate stated she heard about the alleged assault involving Kavanaugh while in school at the time.

    Drip, drip.

    This is an example of why a deliberate process/investigation would be beneficial if the goal is to determine whether the accusation has merit. Others may have heard about the incident, the party, who was in attendance, other potential incidents, etc. There are good reasons to take time vetting a lifetime appointment, and there are only hard-to-defend reasons not to.
    Travis
  • TravisTravis CA
    edited September 2018
    I picture the Republicans in this case as Paul Rudd in Wet Hot American Summer when he didn't want to take his dishes to the "dirty dishes cart," only this time the "dishes" are a sexual assault allegation. Way to go McConnell and Co. Then again, you know there are processes and order which of course McConnell holds in such immensely high respect. He would NEVER want to let anything derail the proper processes. 

    Just brought it over from twitter to spare retyping the same thing:

    cdrive
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • I guess we pulled out the jackhammer cause we are WAY BELOW ROCK FUCKING BOTTOM HERE.

    "ICE arrested undocumented immigrants who came forward to take in undocumented children" - https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/ice-arrested-immigrants-sponsor-children/index.html ;

    Everyone in ICE needs to be tried for crimes against humanity, as well as anyone in the Trump administration who signed off on this nightmare. It somehow keeps getting worse.

    It's fine, though, cause the cages weren't actually cages. 
    bizmarkiefaderCretanBull
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    asmallcat said:
    I guess we pulled out the jackhammer cause we are WAY BELOW ROCK FUCKING BOTTOM HERE.

    "ICE arrested undocumented immigrants who came forward to take in undocumented children" - https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/ice-arrested-immigrants-sponsor-children/index.html ;

    Everyone in ICE needs to be tried for crimes against humanity, as well as anyone in the Trump administration who signed off on this nightmare. It somehow keeps getting worse.

    It's fine, though, cause the cages weren't actually cages. 
    The kids aren't prisoners, they're bait!
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited September 2018
    My Trump-voting sister and aunt have recently talked about concerns about human trafficking. My sister posted a video on her wall where some 50-year-old lady was discussing it. A lot of mention of men following her around, "strange men" in parking lots. "It doesn't matter how old you are." Wait, what? So 50 year-old-women are selling well on the human trafficking market?

    .......... wtf is this?

    Is this just racism in another form?

    I'm trying to find statistics on this being a real problem. Not sex trafficking or human trafficking, but like, white women being abducted. Edit: Here's the video she shared, showed up on Snopes.
  • A creeper followed her a grocery store, she told him stop and he did, therefore human trafficking.

    There are creeps, certainly, but she probably needs to look up human trafficking before she talks about it because it doesn’t mean what she thinks it means.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    Next time anyone talks about this I'm going to ask them where they heard about it. Sounds like news fear mongering. 
  • tom_gtom_g WV
    edited September 2018
    Pretty young blonde daughters of America are being forced into the sex trade.  Probably by MS-13 and liberals.  What don't you people understand? 
    CretanBull
  • JaimieT said:


    1. Man, I don't know. I've seen the "white men shouldn't be making this decision" argument my entire life, even when I was a fundamentalist Christian. What makes you think even if the right people haven't heard that that they'd change their minds if they did? Like they're gonna have some kind of "Oh, these men don't have any authority here!" moment? Speaking as an ex-fungelical, I've seen the power-holders and the power-supporters be told that power shouldn't work this way and it doesn't do anything. These people feel entitled, and often they are spurred on by Biblical arguments telling them they are meant to make these decisions. Everything is in their jurisdiction.

    2. I wasn't allowed to wear pants in public until I was 12 and switched churches. I was too young to be too in touch with the community's thoughts on the matter, but based on where these people are now... they didn't really believe this was the right way to do things. But they put up with it because the pastor was the authority and what he said went. Also 50% of them were totally unaffected by this. When the pastor preached this from the pulpit (I do remember that), they took it like they did everything else he said: attentive silence or "Aaaa-men," "Preach!" "Glory to God!" It doesn't matter what you really believe if it means losing your community, especially on matters that have nothing to do with the life laid before you.

    3. "Allowing them to pretend that they're against 'murder' frames the issue in a way that lends them a moral sense that I don't think that they have." - Okay, sure, but they say "murder of the unborn," as you know. "Their actual argument is against sex for pleasure" - It's very difficult to convince them of that when no one is saying it.

    It's incredibly powerful to use people's own arguments against them. The main thing that made me soften on the abortion issue is when I followed the logic forward. I did it in a cerebral, theological way. (I'm more than happy to share this if anyone is interested, but it's pretty Christian-y, and so conceptual that it doesn't work on most Christians I've shared it with.) The way the woman outlined here is legal, tangible. It's only as ridiculous as their beliefs are. So from a certain point of view, it's not ridiculous, it's not extreme, it absolutely should be implemented tomorrow because we should stop the American holocaust. The pro-choice movement should be pushing for this instead of saying "Well actually" as though people just fucking magically change their minds.
    Sorry for the delay in responding, I got hit by a nasty cold and I've been in bed for two days.

    At the end of the day, I'm in favour of whatever works.  You have some personal experiences that have given you a perspective that I can't really argue with.  By contrast though, I grew up in the church as well but it was completely different.  Our assistant Minister was openly gay, he attended church with his husband and they were married in our  church.  Totally different experience.

    I wasn't trying to suggest that we should try to change fundamentalists - I was saying that the rest of America should dis-empower them to the point where their influence is relative to their population.  Evangelicals make up about 25% of America, but on these issues they have a controlling influence.  In the same way that you asked me why we have to make things palatable to men, I ask you why do we have to make things palatable to Evangelicals?  Again, I'm with whatever works but I'd rather challenge their authority and influence than use their logic to cater to them on their own terms.  I don't think that there's a right or wrong to that, just a different approach to dealing with the same problem.

    You're right about the fact that no one is saying it...and I guess that's the root of my frustration and argument.  We need to start saying it, loudly.


    JaimieT
  • JaimieT said:
    My Trump-voting sister and aunt have recently talked about concerns about human trafficking. My sister posted a video on her wall where some 50-year-old lady was discussing it. A lot of mention of men following her around, "strange men" in parking lots. "It doesn't matter how old you are." Wait, what? So 50 year-old-women are selling well on the human trafficking market?

    .......... wtf is this?

    Is this just racism in another form?

    I'm trying to find statistics on this being a real problem. Not sex trafficking or human trafficking, but like, white women being abducted. Edit: Here's the video she shared, showed up on Snopes.

    JaimieT said:
    Next time anyone talks about this I'm going to ask them where they heard about it. Sounds like news fear mongering. 
    It's all Q-anon stuff.  This is how I first heard about them.  It was a giant story in that community about how Trump was taking on a giant human trafficking ring.  I saw a video of a woman talking in her car - very similar to the video that you posted, but it was a different woman - who was talking about all of the same things, but she added a political angle to it where Trump was the hero and in her video she said something about how the people who run these rings are behind the attacks on Trump but we should all just believe in the plan.  The video was posted in her name, and I looked her up on facebook where she had a public profile and here whole wall was post after post (like 10-15 new posts every day!) about Trump breaking up pedo rings, human trafficking rings etc and she made lots of references to Q-anon and that was the first time that I'd heard about them.
    JaimieT
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    JaimieT said:


    1. Man, I don't know. I've seen the "white men shouldn't be making this decision" argument my entire life, even when I was a fundamentalist Christian. What makes you think even if the right people haven't heard that that they'd change their minds if they did? Like they're gonna have some kind of "Oh, these men don't have any authority here!" moment? Speaking as an ex-fungelical, I've seen the power-holders and the power-supporters be told that power shouldn't work this way and it doesn't do anything. These people feel entitled, and often they are spurred on by Biblical arguments telling them they are meant to make these decisions. Everything is in their jurisdiction.

    2. I wasn't allowed to wear pants in public until I was 12 and switched churches. I was too young to be too in touch with the community's thoughts on the matter, but based on where these people are now... they didn't really believe this was the right way to do things. But they put up with it because the pastor was the authority and what he said went. Also 50% of them were totally unaffected by this. When the pastor preached this from the pulpit (I do remember that), they took it like they did everything else he said: attentive silence or "Aaaa-men," "Preach!" "Glory to God!" It doesn't matter what you really believe if it means losing your community, especially on matters that have nothing to do with the life laid before you.

    3. "Allowing them to pretend that they're against 'murder' frames the issue in a way that lends them a moral sense that I don't think that they have." - Okay, sure, but they say "murder of the unborn," as you know. "Their actual argument is against sex for pleasure" - It's very difficult to convince them of that when no one is saying it.

    It's incredibly powerful to use people's own arguments against them. The main thing that made me soften on the abortion issue is when I followed the logic forward. I did it in a cerebral, theological way. (I'm more than happy to share this if anyone is interested, but it's pretty Christian-y, and so conceptual that it doesn't work on most Christians I've shared it with.) The way the woman outlined here is legal, tangible. It's only as ridiculous as their beliefs are. So from a certain point of view, it's not ridiculous, it's not extreme, it absolutely should be implemented tomorrow because we should stop the American holocaust. The pro-choice movement should be pushing for this instead of saying "Well actually" as though people just fucking magically change their minds.
    Sorry for the delay in responding, I got hit by a nasty cold and I've been in bed for two days.

    At the end of the day, I'm in favour of whatever works.  You have some personal experiences that have given you a perspective that I can't really argue with.  By contrast though, I grew up in the church as well but it was completely different.  Our assistant Minister was openly gay, he attended church with his husband and they were married in our  church.  Totally different experience.

    I wasn't trying to suggest that we should try to change fundamentalists - I was saying that the rest of America should dis-empower them to the point where their influence is relative to their population.  Evangelicals make up about 25% of America, but on these issues they have a controlling influence.  In the same way that you asked me why we have to make things palatable to men, I ask you why do we have to make things palatable to Evangelicals?  Again, I'm with whatever works but I'd rather challenge their authority and influence than use their logic to cater to them on their own terms.  I don't think that there's a right or wrong to that, just a different approach to dealing with the same problem.

    You're right about the fact that no one is saying it...and I guess that's the root of my frustration and argument.  We need to start saying it, loudly.



    Well I mean THEY aren't saying it. I think we're trying to say it just fine (what their real motivations are) but they refuse to examine themselves.
    CretanBull
  • I stay away from this thread for obviously reasons. But as a military historian/buff I just need to comment on the latest sanctions the Us is implementing against China and Russia for the arms sale of planes and missiles. 

    This is ridiculous. This just shows who owns the Us government. The defence lobby has so much pull it’s ridiculous. 

    Why is the US meddling with two countries economic military purchases and exchanges. The US doesn’t sell to China or Russia. So why are they getting all hissy that China and Russia are buying from each other. 

    The trade sanctions are bad enough. But when the government starts fucking around with the militaries of other countries it’s not going to turn out good. 

    Taiwan is already a flash point given China’s intention. 

    Ukraine is continuing to be a thorn in NATOs side as Russia continues to provoke in that region. 

    Now Assad is about to win in Syria and the Western democracies are ramping up involvement instead of doing the right thing and ceding that the rebels don’t have the political or public willpower to be successful. 

    Lastly Turkey, Syria, Iran and even India are starting to purchase arms from Russia. Turkey and India are NATO members or allies. But this is seriously concerning. The stage is being set for a complete fracture of alliances and strategic positions in the Middle East that can easily lead to a greater conflict involving superpowers. 
  • LordByLordBy Utah
    edited September 2018
    Sec State Pompeo just refused to stop supporting Saudi Arabia in the war against Yemen that has resulted in a tragic amount of civilian casualties because it would risk Trump’s $2billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia against advice from most of the State Dept.

    The obsession with arms sales, both ours and others, is really kind of weird. This president is so transaction oriented I think he’s missing the larger picture(s).
    tom_g
This discussion has been closed.