Tinidril @ Tinidril @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

1,424

Joined

2 yr. ago

What your missing is that it's not "the courts" it's "the court". The corrupt as fuck Supreme Court made a ruling that lesser courts are obliged to follow. There is no intellectually rigorous reasoning, just corruption in the highest court in the land.

I have no doubt that Trump is capable of giving the order. As it stands, there is no way the order is obeyed. Trump will of course start trying to install loyalists in military leadership, but I doubt even the generals could successfully get such an order obeyed today. The entire military culture would need to be replaced, and I think the protections against that will require more time than Trump has to do it.

Thankfully, incompetence is a core trait of fascism, and I don't think Trump or his people have the juice.

Democrats by principal shouldn't be supporting Israel's genocide, but clearly they are. What makes you think third party politicians will be any different? Bernie is a Democrat and isn't corrupt or pro-genocide. At best I'd say the jury is still out on Jill Stein's loyalties. Third party politicians can be corrupted, and corrupt politicians can infiltrate third parties on false pretence. No, third parties aren't the solution to this particular problem.

That's about as likely as America performing a preemptive nuclear strike on China. The international "fallout" would be pretty much the same.

"The West" wasn't fair, but "America" would be. It's not like China is a monolith either. It might be more monolithic than the US, but I guess we really have the wait and see if that holds. Fuck.

Israel will be fine, as long as they keep spending a fraction of a percent of the US aid they receive to buy US media and politicians.

It's just the best thing that will happen for the next four years.

Trump has never really been one of "their own". They see him like Jed Clampett. He has some degree of wealth, but the elites can't stand him. Of course that doesn't keep them from kissing his ass as president.

The US already spends more per person on socialized healthcare than most countries that have universal socialized medicine. Our current system just inserts grifty billionaires into the money stream before the money gets to actual healthcare.

Going on about? You asked a question and I answered it. Why be dickish about it?

Not exactly. Science is a particular discipline/methodology for discovering reality. In theory it could apply to everything, but it's not the most practical tool for a lot of things.

History in particular is something that politicians (especially Republicans) lie about constantly, but we don't generally include history as one of the sciences. I'm not saying that science doesn't contribute to our knowledge of history, but the scientific method doesn't typically come into conversations about whether slavery actually happened.

Just because I don't think it should be glossed over, it came out several years ago that the Regan campaign was in contact with Iran and negotiated for the hostages to remain in captivity until the election in exchange for concessions he would make as president. Carter failed to free the hostages because he was being undermined by traitors.

He sold his Peanut farm when he became President to avoid any appearance of impropriety. It's astounding that we've gone from that to Trump in one lifetime. Trump doesn't even try to hide that he sees the presidency as one giant opportunity for grift and corruption.

Oh, they get it. That's why they put those displays up in the first place.

We need a new religion that worships reality with clerics who are trained in humanities, epistemology, and combatting disinformation.

EDIT: Apparently reality isn't as popular as I'd hoped.

Depends on the store for me. I happen to live pretty equidistant from 3 Costcos and, in my experience, the richer the area the more people blocking isles with conversations, staring at the ceiling for dog knows what reason, or somehow managing to fuck up the checkout process.

The reporting has been mixed on the language around sterilization, but the more detailed coverage describes the restrictions that way. Other coverage just says things like "coverage restrictions on some gender affirming care". In any case, I expect Republicans to make the deal worse over time if they can.

MAYBE FIGHT TO REMOVE IT FROM THE BILL THEN

We know they didn't remove it from the bill. We don't know that they didn't fight to remove it from the bill. We do know that they objected and negotiated it down for what it originally was. We also know that passing no bill would be worse, even for any children impacted by the coverage restrictions.

Out magazine isn't blowing things out of proportion to harm the Democrats.

My comments were directed at the summary more than the article. The article does have some of the same flaws though.

The HRC, GLAAD, and ACLU aren't just making up things in their head.

I hope they are clear eyed about who is responsible. I don't think it likely that they would blame Democrats and ignore the Republicans who pushed it.

Your capitulating ass doesn't get to decide when LGBTQ people are allowed to get upset

I made no objection to anyone being upset. It absolutely sucks that this was included and I'll fight right along side you to get it changed. We should all be upset. But, we are in a split power situation with the Democrats seriously weakened after the election. That's going to have consequences, and I'm afraid this was the tip of the iceberg. No President with a split Congress has ever been able to control everything in every piece of legislation they sign. That's just not reality.

YOU, who is postulating on complex negotiations behind closed doors.

Postulating that negotiations happened, or what happened in those negotiations? We know the negotiations happened, and we know that early drafts were worse on this and other Republican culture war issues. Beyond that, I don't claim to know anything, but you seem to. It was you who postulated that they didn't try to remove it.

Maybe in the near future we'll learn something about the negotiations that will change my opinion. Maybe the Democrats traded this to the Republicans in exchange for more pork for blue states or more bombs for Israel. Are you aware of any such dealings?

My comments were mostly directed at the summary, although a couple criticisms apply to the article as well. As I said, it's legitimate to discuss how complicit Biden is, and you can add the Senate to that as well. The problem is doing it in the context of incomplete and misleading information about what was actually in the bill, who put it there, and why. Such a discussion does more harm than good in the ways that I explained.

The bit at the end was perhaps over the top, but it's not wrong that this kind of reaction against the Democrats is exactly why the Republicans put it in the bill.

You weren't privy to the negotiations, so your commentary that Democrats just passed it because it was "easier" is entirely speculation. Stating that as fact is something I consider offensive. It also didn't just "sail right through". The negotiations took months, and the negotiations on such a bill don't end until the votes are known. The actual process of calling the vote is irrelevant. I criticize Democrats myself, but not for things I just make up in my head.

The bill just "includes" the provision? Nobody put it there, it's just that new language often spontaneously erupts in a piece of legislation?

And why the vague language of "limits access to gender-affirming care services". What's actually in the bill is no more complex and a lot more clear. Are psychological gender-affirming services still available? Yep. Are puberty blocking drugs still covered? Yep. All that's blocked is coverage for procedures that might result in sterilization - procedures that are already not generally done on minors who arguably aren't yet capable of giving proper consent.

Tell the whole story or GTFO. Debating Biden's complicity is fine, but don't skip the Republican's role with the passive voice like you're CNN describing how more violence just "erupted" in Gaza. Don't hide what's actually in the bill and potentially cause trans kids to not bother seeking medical services because they were misled by your hack politics.

This is not legitimate outrage at the legislation. If it were, you wouldn't have left out the main protagonists, what's actually in the legislation, and the entire story. It's just mastebetory outrage bait meant to divide the left which is (surprise) the entire reason Republicans forced the issue to begin with.

If you're not already a right wing troll, you should go find the people who pay money for posting this kind of garbage.