The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

[beantownbubba]

Some important truths here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/17/opin ... e=Homepage

[beantownbubba]

Harkening back to those long ago days when we batted around the GA voter suppression law and in particular the voter ID requirement, I think this is interesting:

As you know Joe Manchin has proposed an alternative, compromise bill to the voting rights legislation introduced by the Democratic Party. Manchin's proposed bill includes voter ID requirements. Stacey Abrams endorsed Manchin's proposal. With respect to voter ID requirements, this is what she said, per NBC News:

"Pressed on the voter ID provision, Abrams said that 'no one has ever objected to having to prove who you are to vote.'

"She argued that restrictive voter ID bills — like bills that bar voters from using student ID cards but allow gun licenses — are the bills she opposes."

The immediate public response from Republican politicians was along the lines of "if Stacey Abrams is for it, I'm against it." Not only is that pathetic and a complete abdication of responsibility, I personally find it insulting. Why do we need elected representatives if all they're going to do is make "decisions" in opposition to what someone else thinks? Seems to me we could do that by computer and save a boatload of money.

[tinnitus photography]

is the argument that student IDs are easier to forge than gun IDs?

i have only ever voted in MA, but the process seems pretty straightforward and water tight.

you register as a voter using your address

you show up to the polls, go to the precinct area you're registered for, show your ID.
the friendly volunteer looks you up, verifies you via the photo ID, crossed you off their roster and hands you a ballot.
you fill in some ovals
you hand the ballot to another friendly volunteer, who also confirms you on their roster via the same process, takes your ballot and crosses you off.
you get a fun little sticker and then go about your day


do people really try to commit voter fraud? i mean, i just can't see it. it's a total boogeyman by the right.

[boyyourself]

is the argument that student IDs are easier to forge than gun IDs?

i have only ever voted in MA, but the process seems pretty straightforward and water tight.

you register as a voter using your address

you show up to the polls, go to the precinct area you're registered for, show your ID.
the friendly volunteer looks you up, verifies you via the photo ID, crossed you off their roster and hands you a ballot.
you fill in some ovals
you hand the ballot to another friendly volunteer, who also confirms you on their roster via the same process, takes your ballot and crosses you off.
you get a fun little sticker and then go about your day


do people really try to commit voter fraud? i mean, i just can't see it. it's a total boogeyman by the right.

Boogey men everywhere.
You don’t have a problem showing Id?
The lefts boogey man is that it’s racist to require id to vote.

[boyyourself]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indepe ... html%3famp


Watching these people eat themselves is almost funny. Almost.

This highlights a huge difference between the extreme left and the extreme right.

The extreme left will eat itself and scatter under disorganization and the eventual inevitability of it's own stupidity. The people simply aren't as tribal and as soon as a difference emerges in their thought patterns, they split from each other.

On the right, they eventually fall in line and accept the extremist as a lesser evil than not supporting the team, which allows the extreme to eventually gain control. There is no internal policing, or internal mechanism to prevent it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7chicag ... /10801185/


This person just said she’d only talk to
Black and brown journalists then declared racism an emergency. In the same breath. Which is no coincidence———these idiots have to just keep doubling down on their narratives due to a complete lack humility.
Again it’s wish I thought this was funny but it’s just sad.




People claim to care about the climate but they just care about being against something. And the message falls flat. Starting with Al Gores climate report. What was he doing about it? Oh yeah, using more electricity than anyone in New England at his private residence.
And you have people pouring money into Greta thunderg. For what? Because it’s so cute when she says we are all fucked? We are all fucked. What an amazing tactic. Effective even.
And the narrative is far reaching. I hear it on the streets all the time ——we are fucked. Ok. Let’s bring up the problem some more and push solutions under the rug. Because it’s not about solutions, it’s about agendas. As usual. And these people aren’t using less. They aren’t growing food. They are just pushing for alt energy. That’s all they know how to do. (Btw people are investing in large swaths of unproductive land to get paid to rubbish used wind turbine blades which are lasting about 7 years. Not 20. 7. Because no one wants to recycle them. Wow how sustainable. And how long do solar panels last? Where do they come from?). It’s a follow the money game as usual.
And if we need government subsidy to support it and landfills to house the consequences, it’s not great. But hey let’s push for it anyways and people like saying and hearing fancy words like infrastructure. Ah yes. More infrastructure. Thanks joe. That’ll save us all from the falling sky im sure. And let’s not dare track the carbon footprint of a turbine or a solar panel. I dare you to try to find the info. You can’t. Why? Same as Covid…..it’s not about life……it’s about agendas.



I’m all for taking care of the environment. We only have one of them and when it’s gone it’s gone. I’m all about improving Race relations, which is why it’s sad to see people like Obama, Trump, this wack job Chicago mayor, moving race relations backwards. Because they are all about the team. Then your an ugly cheerleader and a shitty referee.

Fortunately Kwame Brown continues to level this playing field. The man these people wish didn’t exist.

[beantownbubba]

is the argument that student IDs are easier to forge than gun IDs?

do people really try to commit voter fraud? i mean, i just can't see it. it's a total boogeyman by the right.

To exaggerate only slightly, there is no "argument." At least not a substantive one.

To exaggerate not at all, people do not try to commit voter fraud and do not actually commit voter fraud, at least not in statistically significant numbers.

To state the case plainly, none of this is about "voter fraud" or "voter ID's". It's about maintaining power and position, the threats thereto and the resulting fear.

[Zip City]

Voter ID to vote is fine if (and only if) ID’s are:

- free
- equally accessible to everyone

If there is a fee attached to the ID or if ID registration centers are only open limited hours, are only accessible by car, etc., then THAT is a problem

[beantownbubba]

Boogey men everywhere.
You don’t have a problem showing Id?
The lefts boogey man is that it’s racist to require id to vote.

Sorry I didn't see this before. I guess it doesn't bother you that what you say is factually untrue. Stacey Abrams, the single person who is perhaps most associated w/ opposing voter suppression legislation and declaring much of that activity racist says that she's ok w/ voter ID laws as long as they're about identifying voters. Now all the people who wanted voter ID laws, mostly conservatives and republicans, won't support them because, you know, Stacey Abrams is in favor. So which leftists are saying that it's racist to require id to vote? And who is opposing a federal voter id law at this very moment?

[tinnitus photography]

is the argument that student IDs are easier to forge than gun IDs?

i have only ever voted in MA, but the process seems pretty straightforward and water tight.

you register as a voter using your address

you show up to the polls, go to the precinct area you're registered for, show your ID.
the friendly volunteer looks you up, verifies you via the photo ID, crossed you off their roster and hands you a ballot.
you fill in some ovals
you hand the ballot to another friendly volunteer, who also confirms you on their roster via the same process, takes your ballot and crosses you off.
you get a fun little sticker and then go about your day


do people really try to commit voter fraud? i mean, i just can't see it. it's a total boogeyman by the right.

Boogey men everywhere.
You don’t have a problem showing Id?
The lefts boogey man is that it’s racist to require id to vote.

your reply is why it's completely useless to have any sort of discussion with you. how in hell did you think what i posted is a position against showing ID?

did you read what Stacey Abrams had to say about voting and IDs?

[Zip City]

Boogey men everywhere.
You don’t have a problem showing Id?
The lefts boogey man is that it’s racist to require id to vote.

Sorry I didn't see this before. I guess it doesn't bother you that what you say is factually untrue. Stacey Abrams, the single person who is perhaps most associated w/ opposing voter suppression legislation and declaring much of that activity racist says that she's ok w/ voter ID laws as long as they're about identifying voters. Now all the people who wanted voter ID laws, mostly conservatives and republicans, won't support them because, you know, Stacey Abrams is in favor. So which leftists are saying that it's racist to require id to vote? And who is opposing a federal voter id law at this very moment?

Gaslight
Obstruct
Project

That is the GOP in 2021

[beantownbubba]

States' rights. Hehe.

If you had told me in, say 1970 or 1980 or 1990 that "states' rights" would ever again be the motivating ideology behind a political movement in the United States of America I would have told you you were crazy. Which shows you just how fucking stupid and naive I am.

States' rights has been the motivating ideology twice before in the USA. The first time it was the stated rallying cry for the Southern states that seceded from the Union and formed the Confederacy. The second time it was the stated rallying cry of segregationists like George Wallace, Bull Connor and Lester Maddox who fought tooth, nail, water cannon and attack dog (to say nothing of the occasional murder and not so occasional beating) to preserve Jim Crow in the face of the Civil Rights Movement.

And now here we are again, with the banner of states' rights being used to justify blocking legislation that would protect the right to vote for all Americans in the face of a movement to restrict those rights. But hey, this time it's not racist and this time it's totally justifiable and reasonable because, you know, massive voter fraud, an actual, demonstrable lie, or at this point, a flat out fantasy. If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it sounds like a duck and if it speaks the language of ducks, it's a fucking duck.

[John A Arkansawyer]

If you had told me in, say 1970 or 1980 or 1990 that "states' rights" would ever again be the motivating ideology behind a political movement in the United States of America I would have told you you were crazy. Which shows you just how fucking stupid and naive I am.

Now, perhaps, but back then, you had your head on straight.

"States rights" isn't an ideology--it's an excuse, a cover, a convenient way for sophists of all sorts to argue for their flavorite social idea on the grounds of it's local. Only the suckers believe it means anything, or is a reason to go against something they're otherwise in favor of.

If only the ideology of the right was as innocent as "states rights"!

[LBRod]

If you had told me in, say 1970 or 1980 or 1990 that "states' rights" would ever again be the motivating ideology behind a political movement in the United States of America I would have told you you were crazy. Which shows you just how fucking stupid and naive I am.

Now, perhaps, but back then, you had your head on straight.

"States rights" isn't an ideology--it's an excuse, a cover, a convenient way for sophists of all sorts to argue for their flavorite social idea on the grounds of it's local. Only the suckers believe it means anything, or is a reason to go against something they're otherwise in favor of.

If only the ideology of the right was as innocent as "states rights"!

So why have states?

[Zip City]

If you had told me in, say 1970 or 1980 or 1990 that "states' rights" would ever again be the motivating ideology behind a political movement in the United States of America I would have told you you were crazy. Which shows you just how fucking stupid and naive I am.

Now, perhaps, but back then, you had your head on straight.

"States rights" isn't an ideology--it's an excuse, a cover, a convenient way for sophists of all sorts to argue for their flavorite social idea on the grounds of it's local. Only the suckers believe it means anything, or is a reason to go against something they're otherwise in favor of.

If only the ideology of the right was as innocent as "states rights"!

So why have states?

Exactly

[LBRod]

So why have states?

Exactly

Thank you for your honesty.

[Zip City]

So why have states?

Exactly

Thank you for your honesty.

It’s a question I often have. A state is no better at governance than a country; no state is homogenous, no governor or state legislature represents a state’s needs (and they are usually insanely corrupt to boot)

[beantownbubba]

If you had told me in, say 1970 or 1980 or 1990 that "states' rights" would ever again be the motivating ideology behind a political movement in the United States of America I would have told you you were crazy. Which shows you just how fucking stupid and naive I am.

Now, perhaps, but back then, you had your head on straight.

"States rights" isn't an ideology--it's an excuse, a cover, a convenient way for sophists of all sorts to argue for their flavorite social idea on the grounds of it's local. Only the suckers believe it means anything, or is a reason to go against something they're otherwise in favor of.

If only the ideology of the right was as innocent as "states rights"!

So why have states?

In my humble opinion we can't answer this question until we understand what people who claim to to legitimately believe in "states' rights" separate and apart from the history and [what I have argued is] the true meaning of the term think about how states' rights apply to issues like abortion, gun control and on and on and on. Implicit in my argument above is the piece where states' rights is only trotted out when it's convenient to those arguing one side of a particular issue; it does not appear to be in any real way an actual philosophy or theory or method of governance. If we can get past that, I'd be happy to seriously respond to your question in the spirit of open discussion and inquiry.

[LBRod]

In my humble opinion we can't answer this question until we understand what people who claim to to legitimately believe in "states' rights" separate and apart from the history and [what I have argued is] the true meaning of the term think about how states' rights apply to issues like abortion, gun control and on and on and on. Implicit in my argument above is the piece where states' rights is only trotted out when it's convenient to those arguing one side of a particular issue; it does not appear to be in any real way an actual philosophy or theory or method of governance. If we can get past that, I'd be happy to seriously respond to your question in the spirit of open discussion and inquiry.

I know you're not asking me to defend every idiotic thing the republicans do or say in the name of "states rights."
Those assholes get in the way of an honest discussion about the proper role of a massive federal bureaucracy in
the lives of a supposedly free citizenry. I would make the same argument about the state government here in CA.

[beantownbubba]

In my humble opinion we can't answer this question until we understand what people who claim to to legitimately believe in "states' rights" separate and apart from the history and [what I have argued is] the true meaning of the term think about how states' rights apply to issues like abortion, gun control and on and on and on. Implicit in my argument above is the piece where states' rights is only trotted out when it's convenient to those arguing one side of a particular issue; it does not appear to be in any real way an actual philosophy or theory or method of governance. If we can get past that, I'd be happy to seriously respond to your question in the spirit of open discussion and inquiry.

I know you're not asking me to defend every idiotic thing the republicans do or say in the name of "states rights."
Those assholes get in the way of an honest discussion about the proper role of a massive federal bureaucracy in
the lives of a supposedly free citizenry. I would make the same argument about the state government here in CA.

You're right I'm not asking you to do that. I'm saying that "states' rights" is not a synonym for "limited government." The latter can be talked about seriously, whatever one's views, but the former is a dog whistle or slogan masquerading as a political philosophy.

[LBRod]

In my humble opinion we can't answer this question until we understand what people who claim to to legitimately believe in "states' rights" separate and apart from the history and [what I have argued is] the true meaning of the term think about how states' rights apply to issues like abortion, gun control and on and on and on. Implicit in my argument above is the piece where states' rights is only trotted out when it's convenient to those arguing one side of a particular issue; it does not appear to be in any real way an actual philosophy or theory or method of governance. If we can get past that, I'd be happy to seriously respond to your question in the spirit of open discussion and inquiry.

I know you're not asking me to defend every idiotic thing the republicans do or say in the name of "states rights."
Those assholes get in the way of an honest discussion about the proper role of a massive federal bureaucracy in
the lives of a supposedly free citizenry. I would make the same argument about the state government here in CA.

You're right I'm not asking you to do that. I'm saying that "states' rights" is not a synonym for "limited government." The latter can be talked about seriously, whatever one's views, but the former is a dog whistle or slogan masquerading as a political philosophy.

It has not always been, not should it be a dog whistle. I can't keep up with formerly normal words and phrases that
now trigger some on the left. Don't let them get you, Bubba.

[boyyourself]

I know you're not asking me to defend every idiotic thing the republicans do or say in the name of "states rights."
Those assholes get in the way of an honest discussion about the proper role of a massive federal bureaucracy in
the lives of a supposedly free citizenry. I would make the same argument about the state government here in CA.

You're right I'm not asking you to do that. I'm saying that "states' rights" is not a synonym for "limited government." The latter can be talked about seriously, whatever one's views, but the former is a dog whistle or slogan masquerading as a political philosophy.

It has not always been, not should it be a dog whistle. I can't keep up with formerly normal words and phrases that
now trigger some on the left. Don't let them get you, Bubba.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newswe ... 88%3famp=1


I’ll give You a pass for using the T word this time. But try to soften it up Rod.

[beantownbubba]

It has not always been, not should it be a dog whistle. I can't keep up with formerly normal words and phrases that
now trigger some on the left. Don't let them get you, Bubba.

Then we disagree and that surprises me in this instance. As I tried to argue in my first post on this subject "states' rights" as a political slogan has never been about the rights of states in a federal system. It has its disreputable and questionable origins in the fight to maintain slavery followed by the decision by the confederate states to secede and it has been downhill (i.e. never "normal") from there. Again, I do think we have plenty to talk about and probably significant areas of agreement on the appropriate role of states in a federal system (or phrased differently, the appropriate limitations on the national government in a federal system), but I don't think it's me who's been got this time, my friend. And while the left has mangled plenty a word or phrase, it's a pretty widespread phenomenon that shames (or ought to shame) everyone from far left to far right. My favorites are "niggardly" on the left and "pro life" on the right, but there is unfortunately no shortage of candidates.

[LBRod]

While the left has mangled plenty a word or phrase, it's a pretty widespread phenomenon that shames (or ought to shame) everyone from far left to far right.

No argument there, my friend.

[chuckrh]

This is too perfect!

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/24/us/forme ... index.html

[pearlbeer]

This is a lovely, well written piece of journalism. Enjoy!


https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblo ... ouis-rally

[beantownbubba]

This is a lovely, well written piece of journalism. Enjoy!


https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblo ... ouis-rally

The last picture is worth the price of admission. I know these folks always whine about entertainers

[beantownbubba]

This is a lovely, well written piece of journalism. Enjoy!


https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblo ... ouis-rally

The last picture is worth the price of admission. I know these folks always whine about entertainers w/ political opinions, so it's almost ironic that they seem to be acting in the best traditions of performers everywhere, adopting a "the show must go on, even if nobody shows up" kind of attitude.

[scotto]

I don't know why "Missouri Man" is not a thing. We've been giving Florida a good competition in the race to the bottom for a couple of decades, but never seem to catch the same national heat. At least Florida has Little Havana and the Don Garlits Museum of Drag Racing.

[Flea]

I don't know why "Missouri Man" is not a thing. We've been giving Florida a good competition in the race to the bottom for a couple of decades, but never seem to catch the same national heat. At least Florida has Little Havana and the Don Garlits Museum of Drag Racing.

And the Dali Museum in St Pete, my favorite collection of art anywhere.

[beantownbubba]

Headline of the year, from an op-ed in today's WaPo:

It's Not the Heat, It's the Existential Dread