The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

[guitarmanmcs]

I think we can all agree Joe Biden is a weakling and a total POS. Hood should be president with Cooley as Vice President. We we would all be so much better off. Controversial I know...but I think this forum need a consensus we can all agree on.

[chuckrh]

I think we can all agree Joe Biden is a weakling and a total POS. Hood should be president with Cooley as Vice President. We we would all be so much better off. Controversial I know...but I think this forum need a consensus we can all agree on.

Kamala Harris hasn't been impressive either. It's like she's keeping her head down to avoid controversy prior to her run next election. I hope Elizabeth Warren makes another run. She's a very smart lady.

[beantownbubba]

I think we can all agree Joe Biden is a weakling and a total POS. Hood should be president with Cooley as Vice President. We we would all be so much better off. Controversial I know...but I think this forum need a consensus we can all agree on.

My Hood/Cooley 2012, '16 and '20 t-shirts always get a lot of positive comments whenever I wear one of them.

[Clams]

In the absence of a sex thread

Please god, no

[cortez the killer]

In the absence of a sex thread

Please god, no

My Hood/Cooley 2012, '16 and '20 t-shirts always get a lot of positive comments whenever I wear one of them.

[beantownbubba]

In the absence of a sex thread

Please god, no

My Hood/Cooley 2012, '16 and '20 t-shirts always get a lot of positive comments whenever I wear one of them.

Still haven't received a single invite to go home to see someone's etchings.

[guitarmanmcs]

I think we can all agree Joe Biden is a weakling and a total POS. Hood should be president with Cooley as Vice President. We we would all be so much better off. Controversial I know...but I think this forum need a consensus we can all agree on.

Kamala Harris hasn't been impressive either. It's like she's keeping her head down to avoid controversy prior to her run next election. I hope Elizabeth Warren makes another run. She's a very smart lady.

I heard she has a 1/1024th chance of winning

[tinnitus photography]

are we talking about speech in a private or a public setting? do you personally know anyone who has been 'canceled' via the former?

either way, i don't see the false equivalence you are ascribing.

Ummm, now I'm really confused. You included among your quoted comments a direct statement that the Times editorial was making false equivalencies. Another of the quotes didn't use that term but basically said as much. Or, IOW, I thought you were ascribing false equivalence and that I was saying that while the false equivalence argument "Is an easy criticism to make" (and therefore implicitly is not totally wrong) I thought the editorial distinguished between different problems w/ somewhat similar effects but which are not equivalent.

yeah i think the 'false equivalencies' ended up crossing over each other like Ghost Busters. (originally i thought of a Reese's peanut butter cup ad analogy but the one i used is likely as dumb and confusing).

[John A Arkansawyer]

The death spiral of an American family

"Dad, I need money to get home," she texted to Dave Jr., late in her shift at A&W. "I'm scared I'm gonna be stuck at work."

She'd joined the workforce full-time in September, after she dropped out of high school four days into the school year. Her plan was to focus on work until she had enough money to buy her own car, re-enroll in school, graduate and then drive that car as far away from Michigan as she could until she made it to the other America, the place where the rich always seemed to be getting richer. She wanted to settle on the coast of California and open a tea shop, so she'd started bagging groceries at Kroger early in the morning for $10 an hour and then frying chicken in the afternoon for $9 an hour. She'd worked double shifts six days each week, and yet the most she'd ever managed to save was a few hundred dollars. A third of her paycheck went to rides to and from work. The rest went to taxes, lunches, and household expenses. Six months after dropping out, she was no closer to a car and still 2,500 miles from California, and some days she couldn't afford the four-mile trip home.

[beantownbubba]

The death spiral of an American family

"Dad, I need money to get home," she texted to Dave Jr., late in her shift at A&W. "I'm scared I'm gonna be stuck at work."

She'd joined the workforce full-time in September, after she dropped out of high school four days into the school year. Her plan was to focus on work until she had enough money to buy her own car, re-enroll in school, graduate and then drive that car as far away from Michigan as she could until she made it to the other America, the place where the rich always seemed to be getting richer. She wanted to settle on the coast of California and open a tea shop, so she'd started bagging groceries at Kroger early in the morning for $10 an hour and then frying chicken in the afternoon for $9 an hour. She'd worked double shifts six days each week, and yet the most she'd ever managed to save was a few hundred dollars. A third of her paycheck went to rides to and from work. The rest went to taxes, lunches, and household expenses. Six months after dropping out, she was no closer to a car and still 2,500 miles from California, and some days she couldn't afford the four-mile trip home.

A tragic and all too common story and an epic failure with huge consequences for all of us, especially those directly affected. The lack of universal, affordable health care in this country is a scandal, an embarrassment and a shame. Hell, it's just plain cruel.

The one part I don't get is why the family seems to think they're responsible for the father's debts. Unless they specifically signed on to them or guaranteed them, they're not. If the father had left any assets, they would have been used first to pay his outstanding debts so the kids probably wouldn't have gotten anything, but that's very different.

[beantownbubba]

The death spiral of an American family

"Dad, I need money to get home," she texted to Dave Jr., late in her shift at A&W. "I'm scared I'm gonna be stuck at work."

She'd joined the workforce full-time in September, after she dropped out of high school four days into the school year. Her plan was to focus on work until she had enough money to buy her own car, re-enroll in school, graduate and then drive that car as far away from Michigan as she could until she made it to the other America, the place where the rich always seemed to be getting richer. She wanted to settle on the coast of California and open a tea shop, so she'd started bagging groceries at Kroger early in the morning for $10 an hour and then frying chicken in the afternoon for $9 an hour. She'd worked double shifts six days each week, and yet the most she'd ever managed to save was a few hundred dollars. A third of her paycheck went to rides to and from work. The rest went to taxes, lunches, and household expenses. Six months after dropping out, she was no closer to a car and still 2,500 miles from California, and some days she couldn't afford the four-mile trip home.

Of possible relevance. For those of you who aren't familiar w/ him, Sandel is a really smart guy who writes about complicated ideas in more or less accessible ways.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/opin ... pe=Article

[beantownbubba]

I know, I know, there is no point in wasting time thinking about anything Lindsay Graham says. Even so, his question to Judge Jackson, asking her to rate her religious faith on a scale of 1 to 10 has me dumbfounded. Is this a thing? Do people actually talk about their religious faith this way? What does it even mean? Do you get one point for each commandment you haven't broken? Is that by the day or week or is it a lifetime thing? Do you get points for the number of services you attend? Do you get more or fewer points for attending services on major holidays? Is not keeping kosher/halal one point off in total, or a one point deduction for each time you eat pork? Do you get points for wearing jewelry w/ religious symbols? What about bumper stickers? There is something seriously wrong w/ this guy and the institution he purports to represent.

On a related subject, it is certainly possible that Sens. Hawley & Cruz have made the conscious calculation that their political ambitions are best served by appearing to have, shall we say, an intelligence deficit, but I'm starting to wonder: Did they receive their Ivy League educations through some kind of affirmative action? E.g. geographical diversity? Some misguided application of the Roman Hruska principle?*

*For those too young to remember, Hruska famously justified Nixon's nomination of G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court by noting that "Even if he [Carswell] were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises and Frankfurters and Cardozos."

[John A Arkansawyer]

In the absence of a sex thread I guess sexual politics goes in the politics thread. This article reads like an anthropological study of an obscure and faraway culture for someone of my age and/or outlook. I have no idea whether the author paints a broadly accurate picture. But geez, is this what it's really like out there? I find this so sad and regrettable. Heartbreaking, really. At the end of the day and without wanting to trivialize an important subject, it seems like yet another example of a worthy and meaningful attempt to address a real problem, i.e. the requirement of consent as a way to reduce/eliminate sexual violence, being watered down to its minimalist, formalistic, least useful meaning and application as it is adopted broadly in the culture. Consent is surely necessary for "ethical sex," but it's hardly the only condition.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 3ade2bffd5

This is a very conservative article that expresses views also held on the cultural left. It's a great marriage of minds.

As Rachel told me: “Every single person I know — every woman I know — has had some questionable encounter, whether it was, like, really violent or really forceful or just kind of like, ‘Oh, I hated that. That was not fun.’”

And this is different from women in the dating pool circa, oh, 1980?

But even this more modern definition does not seem to have substantially reduced the unhappiness among many sexually active men and women. The same complaints and confusions abound. What if one party hopes for a future together and the other does not? What counts as a relationship, and what is “casual,” if the definition isn’t mutually shared? If men and women have different fertility timelines, does that affect the power dynamic? Where does money play in, or status?

Or this? It's not a new problem she's pointing at. She's blaming something--consent--for not solving a problem which is out of its scope.

She does have one sentence that gets at the heart of the matter:

Making the standard of consent our sole criterion for good sex punts on the question of how to conduct a relationship that affirms our fundamental personhood and human dignity.

The devil in the details here is what you mean by "relationship", and indeed, on whether "relationship" itself is a criterion for good sex. Sometimes it's the agreement on non-"relationship" that makes good sex great. Which is, of course, a type of relationship.

And did you notice how straight the article was? It's all about heterosexuality. I'll take oranges and cigarettes instead--and I don't even smoke.

[pearlbeer]

I know, I know, there is no point in wasting time thinking about anything Lindsay Graham says. Even so, his question to Judge Jackson, asking her to rate her religious faith on a scale of 1 to 10 has me dumbfounded. Is this a thing? Do people actually talk about their religious faith this way? What does it even mean? Do you get one point for each commandment you haven't broken? Is that by the day or week or is it a lifetime thing? Do you get points for the number of services you attend? Do you get more or fewer points for attending services on major holidays? Is not keeping kosher/halal one point off in total, or a one point deduction for each time you eat pork? Do you get points for wearing jewelry w/ religious symbols? What about bumper stickers? There is something seriously wrong w/ this guy and the institution he purports to represent.

Interesting he's never asked that question of the Evangelical Prophet, Donald J Trump, who famously couldn't quote a single Bible verse.

[Zip City]

He explicitly said that her faith was not a determine factor in her confirmation, and yet he continued with the line of questioning.

For the GOP, these hearings have nothing to do with the nominee and everything to do with getting sound bites they can use in upcoming political ads.

See also: Josh Hawley

[cortez the killer]

For the GOP, these hearings have nothing to do with the nominee and everything to do with getting sound bites they can use in upcoming political ads.

C'mon now, Zip! That's an unsubstantiated low blow. The GOP wouldn't stoop to such a level.

[cortez the killer]

LJ liked to use the perfect word to describe ol' Ginni. Rhymes with an act of kicking in football.

[Zip City]

One of many reasons why lifetime appointments to SCOTUS are a problem. Clarence is compromised as fuuucck

[chuckrh]

LJ liked to use the perfect word to describe ol' Ginni. Rhymes with an act of kicking in football.

The English use that word often & enthusiastically. They cuss much better than us yanks.

[beantownbubba]

Personally, I'd say Clarence is the cunt here. And using a euphemism doesn't make the term any less sexist and insulting without being meaningful when applied to Ginny. Why can't she just be a sleazy, slimy, motherfucking politician like all the rest of them? Clarence OTOH is all of that as well as being an unethical hypocritical dirtbag.

[beantownbubba]

Two quotes.

From Robert Christgau on twitter:

"How the revolting likes of Lindsey Graham and Josh Hawley can consider themselves qualified to interrogate this manifestly decent woman says more than I'm comfortable admitting how fucked up this country is."

From Michael Gerson in the WaPo:

"The MAGA world now has animating manias beyond Trump’s immediate priorities. The circus in the Senate is how ambitious elected Republicans understand the avenue to influence — with or without Trump’s direction. And they are probably reading the base of the GOP correctly. The problem, as usual, is deeper and greater than Trump. The shallowness and cynicism of the nomination process may well be previewing our political future."

[pearlbeer]

Two quotes.

From Robert Christgau on twitter:

"How the revolting likes of Lindsey Graham and Josh Hawley can consider themselves qualified to interrogate this manifestly decent woman says more than I'm comfortable admitting how fucked up this country is."

From Michael Gerson in the WaPo:

"The MAGA world now has animating manias beyond Trump’s immediate priorities. The circus in the Senate is how ambitious elected Republicans understand the avenue to influence — with or without Trump’s direction. And they are probably reading the base of the GOP correctly. The problem, as usual, is deeper and greater than Trump. The shallowness and cynicism of the nomination process may well be previewing our political future."

Clearly a few are testing messages to the Qanon portion of the RepubliQan party. It's fucking insane. IMO all current members of congress should be required to retake their oath of office acknowledging that Biden is the current president.

It's just so goddamn depressing that so many adults believe in this shit that makes Santa Claus look like a more plausible theory....still...

[cortez the killer]

Personally, I'd say Clarence is the cunt here. And using a euphemism doesn't make the term any less sexist and insulting without being meaningful when applied to Ginny. Why can't she just be a sleazy, slimy, motherfucking politician like all the rest of them? Clarence OTOH is all of that as well as being an unethical hypocritical dirtbag.

I know you were bemoaning the absence of a sex thread, but are you suggesting that I'm being sexist, bubba?

[pearlbeer]

Personally, I'd say Clarence is the cunt here. And using a euphemism doesn't make the term any less sexist and insulting without being meaningful when applied to Ginny. Why can't she just be a sleazy, slimy, motherfucking politician like all the rest of them? Clarence OTOH is all of that as well as being an unethical hypocritical dirtbag.

I know you were bemoaning the absence of a sex thread, but are you suggesting that I'm being sexist, bubba?

I think he called you SEXY not sexist.

[chuckrh]

Personally, I'd say Clarence is the cunt here. And using a euphemism doesn't make the term any less sexist and insulting without being meaningful when applied to Ginny. Why can't she just be a sleazy, slimy, motherfucking politician like all the rest of them? Clarence OTOH is all of that as well as being an unethical hypocritical dirtbag.

I know you were bemoaning the absence of a sex thread, but are you suggesting that I'm being sexist, bubba?

I think he called you SEXY not sexist.

[beantownbubba]

I know you were bemoaning the absence of a sex thread, but are you suggesting that I'm being sexist, bubba?

I did not call you a sexist. I said that calling a female public figure by a derogatory slang term for a female sexual organ is a sexist comment. Now that I think of it, calling a male public figure by a derogatory slang term for a female sexual organ is also sexist and I regret doing so. In both cases, the comments are sexist which is different than labeling the speaker as sexist.

[beantownbubba]

Although the author comes at the subject from a different perspective than mine, he writes what I've been saying for a long time, i.e. "originalism" does not mean very much if anything and serves to hide a lot of judicial skullduggery more than it illuminates some proclaimed "judicial philosophy." IOW, there is no there there.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... 3ade3f3d24

[pearlbeer]

[media]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... takeaways/[/media]

[beantownbubba]

[media]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... takeaways/[/media]

I find this particularly interesting for a kind of strange reason. I occasionally have issues w/ Sargent when I think he extrapolates far further than the available facts really support and sometimes uses those extrapolations to "support" opinions that imho get pretty far from the current reality. In this case he does the opposite. First he takes pains to note that there might be a reasonable/acceptable reason for the missing logs. Oh really? On what planet? In what alternative universe? Missing phone logs that exactly overlap w/ the time of an attempted coup by a sitting president and his gang are missing for an innocent reason? That's absurd.

Second the conclusions he draws, his 3 takeaways, seem kind of milquetoast-y in light of the reality. The president and his people are destroying evidence and perverting the course of justice with respect to an attempted coup. That seems a lot more serious and big point headline material than the rather subdued conclusions Sargent reaches.

Between taking the 5th, withholding evidence, refusing to testify, ignoring subpoenas and offering up ever more ludicrous "legal theories" to "justify" all of the above, the Trump Gang is running roughshod over our political and judicial systems. IMHO that's pretty fucking serious and outrageous. When is the media going to finally get behind the obvious conclusion that events since November 2020 make Watergate look like a high school prank?

[305 Engine]

The English use that word often & enthusiastically. They cuss much better than us yanks.

You mean this sort of thing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTifRi3qDkU

I've actually always wondered why americans are shy about that word.