The All Things Political Topic - All people love themselves too much to be changed by something as simple as love.

[Elerond]

57 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Thats interesting. I was just reading What Causes Inflation and Who Profits From It? and it seems inflation is variable due to several reasons (the Federal Reserve tries to keep it around 2%). So using you as an example, how do you negotiate a raise? Is it performed annually? Otherwise it would be impossible to predict the inflation in SA over a 5 year contract?

Union contract that my company uses, has clause that salaries need to be checked yearly and there needs to be 1.2% increase in purchasing power. So yearly salary increase is estimated inflation plus 1.2%.

Inflation estimate is done by economists from worker union and employer union together.

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

The GOP is in complete thrall to the worst elements of their constituency. The Democrats are in thrall to the stupidest elements of their constituency. It would be incorrect to sat "they are all the same". It is COMPLETELY correct to say "they are all terrible". 

Would you rather french kiss an angry crocodile or swallow a live Bark Scorpion. And remember... you HAVE to choose one!

your need to indulge false equivalency is unhealthy. why do you keep downplaying trump excesses and the insurrectionist efforts on january 6? answer: unless you do so you can't even convince your self that the gop, which embraced trump and is now seeming okie dokie with white supremacists sharing their tent, is just different branding o' the democrats. you latch onto minor mischaracterizations o' biden comments to the media and continue to support the overt ridiculous burisma conspiracy theories because you need to find equivalency between the bidens and the trumps, and reality makes that very hard indeed. 

is not hard to find individual bad democrats. create a ledger and tell your self that is just as many bad democrats as republicans-- proof they is all bad. whatever. ignore the past +five years.

btw, have been banging the muslim ban thing for years, so@KP on top of ZA WARUDO is preaching to the choir in that respect, but bring up is useful for dealing with gd as well. the problem with kp's date is twofold: 

1) trump promised a muslim ban in december o' 2015

2) many republicans were still criticizing the muslim ban in 2017

...

every major candidate at the time, republican and democrat, voiced their strong disapproval o' the initial muslim ban promise by trump. were an obvious bridge too far for republican and democrat leadership in late 2015. is not that those republican candidates were lying 'bout their rejection o' the muslim ban neither. were ez to vilify trump in 2015. by january 2017 there wasn't in actuality much more support for a muslim ban 'mongst even republicans than there were in 2016, but trump and bannon had figured out the formula and they knew that moderate republicans would eventual be complicit with the unthinkable if they kept selling hate and fear to the radicalized +20% o' their party. and that is what happened. 

republicans and independents as a whole did reject the muslim ban, but inch by inch and transgression by transgression, we got to a point where folks like mejier, who we suspect is no chance in hell woulda' defended white vans in oregon, burying ig reports, attempted overturn o' electoral college results and dozens o' other excesses way back in 2015 or even 2017, were struggling with such conundrums? should never have been any difficulty in standing up against such naked villainy, but that is what years o' incremental trump abrogation o' rule o' law and conscience did to the gop as the far right became more radicalized and the moderates passive and complicit followed behind, no doubt telling selves that doing so were ok 'cause they could limit the excesses but only from the inside... or somesuch similar self-serving doggerel. 

gd, on the other hand, has been perpetual hopeless. they is all bad forces him to downplay obvious excesses and magnify nonexistent or small ones. recall we were told by gd in early/mid 2020 is no way trump would challenge the election results if he lost and such stories were yet another example o' the media trying to make trump look like a monster. 'course when trump actual did challenge election results, gd only saw as proof the system worked as designed, 'cause trump is no longer in office, yes? the capacity human beings to engage in extreme self-delusion is fascinating and terrible, no? 

yeah, for Gromnir it were december 7, 2015 which were the date we realized that not only were trump unfit for office, representing something vile and repugnant which were impossible to embrace no matter what kinda transactional thinking you might wanna posit, but when we saw crowds cheer and alt-right (but increasing mainstream) media sources applaud his promise, we realized trump were more dangerous than we had previous believed. trump were intentional setting himself apart from those they are all the same beltway politicians and he were doing so not with a positive message, but rather with fear and bigotry. but again, many republicans were similarly disgusted and appalled by trump in 2016 and even early 2017. recall how low 2016 voter turnout was and just how many votes independents received... which gd mistaken identified as a sea change. 

inch by inch. crime by crime. we already noted just how counter intuitive the trump insanity is, but the more trump did wrong, and the more polarized the country became, the easier it were for people like mejier to meekly ignore each new transgression, and each new transgression made more clear to everybody but gd how ridiculous is his they are all bad silliness. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps and this shouldn't need be said, but clear is-- if DEMOCRATS had been genuine appalled by trump's muslim ban in 2016, then trump would never have been elected to office in the first place. 12/7/2015 "should have been it for anyone with even a pretense of giving a **** about freedom or opposed to government overreach and yet too many folks were and are willing to swallow or downplay" such. instead, too many democrats sat on their arse or voted independent as gd advises. a gentle reminder how painful the mirror may be looking for bad guys.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, Elerond said:

Union contract that my company uses, has clause that salaries need to be checked yearly and there needs to be 1.2% increase in purchasing power. So yearly salary increase is estimated inflation plus 1.2%.

Inflation estimate is done by economists from worker union and employer union together.

Elerond Im very disappointed with your PM going to a club during this pandemic, what are you guys going to do about her recalcitrant behavior ...is she going to get arrested? 

She is hot but I dont think beauty should be an excuse to flout virus regulations ?

[BruceVC]

39 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

your need to indulge false equivalency is unhealthy. why do you keep downplaying trump excesses and the insurrectionist efforts on january 6? answer: unless you do so you can't even convince your self that the gop, which embraced trump and is now seeming okie dokie with white supremacists sharing their tent, is just different branding o' the democrats. you latch onto minor mischaracterizations o' biden comments to the media and continue to support the overt ridiculous burisma conspiracy theories because you need to find equivalency between the bidens and the trumps, and reality makes that very hard indeed. 

is not hard to find individual bad democrats. create a ledger and tell your self that is just as many bad democrats as republicans-- proof they is all bad. whatever. ignore the past +five years.

btw, have been banging the muslim ban thing for years, so@KP on top of ZA WARUDO is preaching to the choir in that respect, but bring up is useful for dealing with gd as well. the problem with kp's date is twofold: 

1) trump promised a muslim ban in december o' 2015

2) many republicans were still criticizing the muslim ban in 2017

...

every major candidate at the time, republican and democrat, voiced their strong disapproval o' the initial muslim ban promise by trump. were an obvious bridge too far for republican and democrat leadership in late 2015. is not that those republican candidates were lying 'bout their rejection o' the muslim ban neither. were ez to vilify trump in 2015. by january 2017 there wasn't in actuality much more support for a muslim ban 'mongst even republicans than there were in 2016, but trump and bannon had figured out the formula and they knew that moderate republicans would eventual be complicit with the unthinkable if they kept selling hate and fear to the radicalized +20% o' their party. and that is what happened. 

republicans and independents as a whole did reject the muslim ban, but inch by inch and transgression by transgression, we got to a point where folks like mejier, who we suspect is no chance in hell woulda' defended white vans in oregon, burying ig reports, attempted overturn o' electoral college results and dozens o' other excesses way back in 2015 or even 2017, were struggling with such conundrums? should never have been any difficulty in standing up against such naked villainy, but that is what years o' incremental trump abrogation o' rule o' law and conscience did to the gop as the far right became more radicalized and the moderates passive and complicit followed behind, no doubt telling selves that doing so were ok 'cause they could limit the excesses but only from the inside... or somesuch similar self-serving doggerel. 

gd, on the other hand, has been perpetual hopeless. they is all bad forces him to downplay obvious excesses and magnify nonexistent or small ones. recall we were told by gd in early/mid 2020 is no way trump would challenge the election results if he lost and such stories were yet another example o' the media trying to make trump look like a monster. 'course when trump actual did challenge election results, gd only saw as proof the system worked as designed, 'cause trump is no longer in office, yes? the capacity human beings to engage in extreme self-delusion is fascinating and terrible, no? 

yeah, for Gromnir it were december 7, 2015 which were the date we realized that not only were trump unfit for office, representing something vile and repugnant which were impossible to embrace no matter what kinda transactional thinking you might wanna posit, but when we saw crowds cheer and alt-right (but increasing mainstream) media sources applaud his promise, we realized trump were more dangerous than we had previous believed. trump were intentional setting himself apart from those they are all the same beltway politicians and he were doing so not with a positive message, but rather with fear and bigotry. but again, many republicans were similarly disgusted and appalled by trump in 2016 and even early 2017. recall how low 2016 voter turnout was and just how many votes independents received... which gd mistaken identified as a sea change. 

inch by inch. crime by crime. we already noted just how counter intuitive the trump insanity is, but the more trump did wrong, and the more polarized the country became, the easier it were for people like mejier to meekly ignore each new transgression, and each new transgression made more clear to everybody but gd how ridiculous is his they are all bad silliness. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps and this shouldn't need be said, but clear is-- if DEMOCRATS had been genuine appalled by trump's muslim ban in 2016, then trump would never have been elected to office in the first place. 12/7/2015 "should have been it for anyone with even a pretense of giving a **** about freedom or opposed to government overreach and yet too many folks were and are willing to swallow or downplay" such. instead, too many democrats sat on their arse or voted independent as gd advises. a gentle reminder how painful the mirror may be looking for bad guys.

@Guard Dog

You did it again, you successfully invoked the " summon Gromnir " spell ..Im always envious of your mastery of the arcane arts

I am fairly proficient in the spell and I always have my wards prepared but I just dont have your success rate ...but I am practicing and each week I make progress 

[Gorth]

Since Gromnir brought up the subject of government overreach, the Australian Liberal Party is at it again. Smarting badly after their referendum defeat on same sex marriage, they have been investigating every possible avenue to suppress civil liberties and rights of the Australian LGBT community. Their latest escapade is ironically called the 'Religious Discrimination Act'.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-introduces-contentious-religious-anti-discrimination-legislation-2021-11-25/

I say ironically, because while they market it as being about not discriminating against people because of their (Christian) religion, it's in reality, if you've followed the story the last 4 years, a way to allow people to discriminate freely if they do it in the name of religion, effectively being a blank cheque for religious people to discriminate as they see fit. Especially targeting the LGBT community (as a payback for the "wrong" referendum results).

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, Gorth said:

Since Gromnir brought up the subject of government overreach, the Australian Liberal Party is at it again. Smarting badly after their referendum defeat on same sex marriage, they have been investigating every possible avenue to suppress civil liberties and rights of the Australian LGBT community. Their latest escapade is ironically called the 'Religious Discrimination Act'.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-introduces-contentious-religious-anti-discrimination-legislation-2021-11-25/

I say ironically, because while they market it as being about not discriminating against people because of their (Christian) religion, it's in reality, if you've followed the story the last 4 years, a way to allow people to discriminate freely if they do it in the name of religion, effectively being a blank cheque for religious people to discriminate as they see fit. Especially targeting the LGBT community (as a payback for the "wrong" referendum results).

We must always be aware of any new  insidious  laws that target LGBT that are more common in certain countries, like Russia and several African countries, than we may realize . But I am confused how this particular bill is homophobic?

The article mentions  "legislation would protect people who express their religious faith outside of the workplace as long as it did not cause financial damage to their employer "....so this is  a good thing as we should be able to be say " Im a Christian or Im a  Muslim " without discrimination right?

The article clearly frames it like that but then it says "it would enable discrimination against gay students and teachers as it permits prioritising the  hiring and enrolment of people based on faith"  But why cant you be LGBT and Christian and then the article states "Morrison said the legislation would also protect Australians who make "statements of belief" from discrimination laws, but only if those statements do not "threaten, intimidate, harass or vilify a person or group".

So in other words this should protect LGBT because he is clearly stating " you can be openly religious but you cant discriminate " 

So Im not understanding what the concern is because the article is ambiguous? 

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

So Im not understanding what the concern is because the article is ambiguous?

A bit of background information... it all started with a rugby player who got fired from his club because he went on a hate rant on social media against the LGBT community. He sued his then employer for wrongful determination, because he did nothing wrong according to the bible and his religion (I'm not kidding, that was the basis of his claims)

 

So, the Liberal party saw an opportunity to get back at the LGBT community because of the lost referendum in 2017, which the church handled very badly.

 

Enter stage left, a new law that would allow to discriminate as long as it fits the narrative of your (the Christian) church and give it some fancy name like the Religious Discrimination Act, which is ostensibly about not allowing people to discriminate against religion, but in reality is a carte blanche for religious people to discriminate against minorities not to their liking. Because if something is offensive to the church, it's obviously discriminating against the church, right? So, lets give the church some added protection by allowing it to discriminate at will. They have since then watered down the text a bit, as it now does not allow doctors etc. to refuse to treat minorities, even in life threatening situations (which was possible in the original wording of the law), because if they were part of LGBT community, they were obviously sinners and it would be ok for medical staff to just let them die. That's The Australian Liberal Party and the Australian Church (bunch of hypocrite child rapists that they are) for you.

[BruceVC]

15 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

The GOP is in complete thrall to the worst elements of their constituency. The Democrats are in thrall to the stupidest elements of their constituency. It would be incorrect to sat "they are all the same". It is COMPLETELY correct to say "they are all terrible". 

Would you rather french kiss an angry crocodile or swallow a live Bark Scorpion. And remember... you HAVE to choose one!

I have been ruminating on your question and after careful consideration I would rather kiss an angry crocodile because if I swallow a scorpion it can easily sting me  in the mouth or throat and I would die but I could possibly avoid a crocodile snapping at me if I kissed it. 

And I assume in the analogous sense the Democrats are the scorpion and the GOP the crocodile....tell me I got it right GD 

[BruceVC]

7 minutes ago, Gorth said:

A bit of background information... it all started with a rugby player who got fired from his club because he went on a hate rant on social media against the LGBT community. He sued his then employer for wrongful determination, because he did nothing wrong according to the bible and his religion (I'm not kidding, that was the basis of his claims)

 

So, the Liberal party saw an opportunity to get back at the LGBT community because of the lost referendum in 2017, which the church handled very badly.

 

Enter stage left, a new law that would allow to discriminate as long as it fits the narrative of your (the Christian) church and give it some fancy name like the Religious Discrimination Act, which is ostensibly about not allowing people to discriminate against religion, but in reality is a carte blanche for religious people to discriminate against minorities not to their liking. Because if something is offensive to the church, it's obviously discriminating against the church, right? So, lets give the church some added protection by allowing it to discriminate at will. They have since then watered down the text a bit, as it now does not allow doctors etc. to refuse to treat minorities, even in life threatening situations (which was possible in the original wording of the law), because if they were part of LGBT community, they were obviously sinners and it would be ok for medical staff to just let them die. That's The Australian Liberal Party and the Australian Church (bunch of hypocrite child rapists that they are) for you.

Okay thanks for explaining and I can see the potential abuse

But I still need to understand something, so are you saying that under this new law you as Gorth can do the following

• On your FB profile you are understandably able to say " Im a Christian and support Christian values" : Nothing wrong with that 
• However on that same profile you say " I dont support LGBT rights  due to religious reasons " : This is wrong and contrary to  general human rights laws but I am not sure if this can be classified as hate speech or is illegal in Oz?
• Now you have a company and you decide to not hire someone because they LGBT: This is wrong and is discrimination according to Oz  human rights laws ?

But how would we know you are not hiring someone because they LGBT because the law says " but only if those statements do not "threaten, intimidate, harass or vilify a person or group"

So surely if you publically dont hire someone because they gay that is illegal and not what this law is about ? And if you dont need to give the exact reason for not hiring them how can we say with certainty its because they LGBT ?

Im genuinely confused by what this law will enable because I am looking for practical examples of how LGBT will be discriminated against because I see religious freedom as different to laws around human rights 

[Gorth]

5 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

So surely if you publically dont hire someone because they gay that is illegal and not what this law is about ? And if you dont need to give the exact reason for not hiring them how can we say with certainty its because they LGBT ?

Im genuinely confused by what this law will enable because I am looking for practical examples of how LGBT will be discriminated against because I see religious freedom as different to laws around human rights 

It means you can legally refuse to hire someone who is gay for example, because it offends your religious sensibilities. It would be similar to refusing to hire somebody whose skin has the "wrong" colour being legitimate because it offends whatever values you profess to have.

[BruceVC]

5 minutes ago, Gorth said:

It means you can legally refuse to hire someone who is gay for example, because it offends your religious sensibilities. It would be similar to refusing to hire somebody whose skin has the "wrong" colour being legitimate because it offends whatever values you profess to have.

Oh, I see. That is serious and concerning, has this happened before where someone hasnt been hired and the reason given is "they LGBT"

I dont think you need actual  examples to be concerned with the impact with this type of legislation but I am interested ?

[Gorth]

10 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

I dont think you need actual  examples to be concerned with the impact with this type of legislation but I am interested ?

No actual examples yet, because the law hasn't been passed yet. It's just the gist of the proposed law (and the background I provided above, what went before and lead to it)

[Gorth]

...and to something a bit further from home...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59582146

A senior Western intelligence official has warned that if Russia decides to invade Ukraine, a conflict could spill over further into Europe.

 

Somewhere at the end, the article eventually gets to the point, what is it really about. It's a reverse Cuba crises. Back then, The US didn't want Soviet forces withing easy striking distance of the US heartland. Now, Russia doesn't want Nato within easy striking distance of the Russian heartland:

 

Russia wants assurances that Ukraine will never be allowed to join Nato; that Nato members will have no permanent forces or infrastructure based in Ukraine; and for a halt to military exercises near Russia's border.

 

Of course, not without a bit of hypocrisy...

But the alliance has also made clear that it believes that Ukraine has a right to make its own decisions as a sovereign nation, and it is not willing to give Russia a veto on Ukraine's future.

 

Cuba was never given the same courtesy of course, like being allowed to make it's own sovereign decisions about what happened inside its borders. Whats better than having a standard? Two standards!

 

[BruceVC]

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-accuses-netanyahu-disloyalty-f-050157027.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Trump is furious with Netanyahu for being " used because of Iran " and because Netanyahu eventually congratulated Biden on his legitimate win

This is just another example of Trumps lack of understanding of geopolitics and his own narcissism. Its classic Trump 101 and just more of his own insecurity and his normal mercurial and irrational view of the world and his own importance

I hope he doesnt become president again but if he does then thats on the Democrats and some of the  liberal overreach we are seeing in the USA at the moment 

[BruceVC]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/12/democrats-lose-culture-war/620887/

 

Here is a good read about why the Democrats are losing the US culture wars. I support policies from both the GOP and Democrats but I have been very concerned with certain ideas and strategies from the left since Trump won in 2016. I agree with much of this article and in summary the things I definitely agree with  are  points like 

 

• Like the pugnacious DLC founder Al From during the 1980s, Teixeira believes that Democrats can’t convince swing voters that the party is changing unless they publicly denounce activists advocating for positions such as defunding the police and loosening immigration enforcement at the border
• that progressives are steering Democrats toward unsustainable and unelectable positions, particularly on cultural and social questions.

Its a good article 

[Elerond]

20 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Elerond Im very disappointed with your PM going to a club during this pandemic, what are you guys going to do about her recalcitrant behavior ...is she going to get arrested? 

She is hot but I dont think beauty should be an excuse to flout virus regulations ?

She didn't break any virus/health regulations. Reason why her actions caused issue was that she left her official phone for office of prime minister home and only had her official phone as member of parliament with her, which is why she missed text message that informed her that our foreign minister has tested positive to covid and guidance from cabinet secretary that she should avoid contacts with people until she has had covid test which is more cautious than official regulations which say that people who have had two jabs of vaccine don't need to avoid contacts with other people. As prime minister needs be available in any time, her leaving her official phone home is used as way to criticize her, even though she didn't break law as she had her second official phone and bodyguards with her and therefore would have been available during emergency, as leaving the phone home caused her to miss important message.

More worrisome thing is that we had two other minister who were guided to avoid contact with people after they were informed about foreign ministers positive covid test, but they disregarded that guidance and went in public gatherings with hundreds of people (where prime minister was spending time with her husband and their friendly couple, although in club so there would have still some possibility that she could have infected other people had she had the virus. Although there is restriction that clubs can only allow people who have covid pass in, so everyone in the club would have had two jabs of vaccine)

[BruceVC]

7 minutes ago, Elerond said:

She didn't break any virus/health regulations. Reason why her actions caused issue was that she left her official phone for office of prime minister home and only had her official phone as member of parliament with her, which is why she missed text message that informed her that our foreign minister has tested positive to covid and guidance from cabinet secretary that she should avoid contacts with people until she has had covid test which is more cautious than official regulations which say that people who have had two jabs of vaccine don't need to avoid contacts with other people. As prime minister needs be available in any time, her leaving her official phone home is used as way to criticize her, even though she didn't break law as she had her second official phone and bodyguards with her and therefore would have been available during emergency, as leaving the phone home caused her to miss important message.

More worrisome thing is that we had two other minister who were guided to avoid contact with people after they were informed about foreign ministers positive covid test, but they disregarded that guidance and went in public gatherings with hundreds of people (where prime minister was spending time with her husband and their friendly couple, although in club so there would have still some possibility that she could have infected other people had she had the virus. Although there is restriction that clubs can only allow people who have covid pass in, so everyone in the club would have had two jabs of vaccine)

Okay fair enough, its not as serious as I first thought so then their is no need to prosecute her

But Elerond I am more worried that many people in Finland dont seem to understand that during a wave or when their is a  variant you dont go to clubs and large social events....everyone should know that by now?

Do you guys just have guidance and not actual enforcement of these types of pandemic laws that are only applicable during a wave ....like now ?

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Okay fair enough, its not as serious as I first thought so then their is no need to prosecute her

But Elerond I am more worried that many people in Finland dont seem to understand that during a wave or when their is a  variant you dont go to clubs and large social events....everyone should know that by now?

Do you guys just have guidance and not actual enforcement of these types of pandemic laws that are only applicable during a wave ....like now ?

During this pandemic we have learned that Finland's constitution makes all sort enforcement difficult even if they are meant to protect people from pandemic.

Because of business reasons clubs, large social events etc. can disregard all restrictions and guidance if they check that their customers have covid passport to show that they are fully vaccinated or have negative test result from last 72 hours

[BruceVC]

7 minutes ago, Elerond said:

During this pandemic we have learned that Finland's constitution makes all sort enforcement difficult even if they are meant to protect people from pandemic.

Because of business reasons clubs, large social events etc. can disregard all restrictions and guidance if they check that their customers have covid passport to show that they are fully vaccinated or have negative test result from last 72 hours

Elerond did you ever think a day would come when our Constitutions would mean our governments cant  implement the necessary policies to reduce deaths and hospitalizations ....a pity and I never would have guessed this would happen. But its only during certain very rare global problems like this pandemic that we see this problem

So I am not saying any Constitution is bad, I support all Constitutional Democracies as the best systems of government in the history of mankind. But this is a problem where citizens can legally ignore medical advice that saves lives and reduces the spread of the virus 

[Elerond]

4 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Elerond did you ever think a day would come when our Constitutions would mean our governments cant  implement the necessary policies to reduce deaths and hospitalizations ....a pity and I never would have guessed this would happen. But its only during certain very rare global problems like this pandemic that we see this problem

So I am not saying any Constitution is bad, I support all Constitutional Democracies as the best systems of government in the history of mankind. But this is a problem where citizens can legally ignore medical advice that saves lives and reduces the spread of the virus 

It was surprise, because we added infectious disease section in the constitution after swine flu in 2009, to give government tools to react quickly to pandemics, but we found out that it had lots of design problems when it come to restrict people's right to travel and gather and business right to do their business. Government had to use quite lot emergency powers meant to for war times, which our parliament felt were governmental overreach, which is why enabling restrictions using them took quite long time and no proactive measures could be used.

We also found that  competition laws prevented government giving direct assistance to companies, so government had to use development funds to support businesses impacted by covid measures, which meant that businesses had to come up with some sort development plan for their business in order to get assistance.

I hope that during next pandemic we have bit more flexible laws that allow to do proactive measures against the disease instead of waiting that situation gets worse enough to allow usage of emergency laws

[Gromnir]

HA! Good Fun!

[rjshae]

On 12/10/2021 at 4:13 AM, BruceVC said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/12/democrats-lose-culture-war/620887/

 

Here is a good read about why the Democrats are losing the US culture wars. I support policies from both the GOP and Democrats but I have been very concerned with certain ideas and strategies from the left since Trump won in 2016. I agree with much of this article and in summary the things I definitely agree with  are  points like 

• Like the pugnacious DLC founder Al From during the 1980s, Teixeira believes that Democrats can’t convince swing voters that the party is changing unless they publicly denounce activists advocating for positions such as defunding the police and loosening immigration enforcement at the border
• that progressives are steering Democrats toward unsustainable and unelectable positions, particularly on cultural and social questions.

Its a good article 

Funny how the choice in US politics is increasingly becoming between two unelectable positions. The Dems are embracing the deconstruction of nationalism while the Pubs are doing the same for rationalism. It feels like a political death spiral.

[Gromnir]

...

thanks to texas and a complicit SCOTUS, gd may finally have his let it all burn moment.

HA! Good fun!

[Gorth]

I read a funny comment on Texas on one of the previously posted twits, something to the effect of the state the puts more effort into removing womens rights than fixing their broken power grid.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

13 minutes ago, Gorth said:

I read a funny comment on Texas on one of the previously posted twits, something to the effect of the state the puts more effort into removing womens rights than fixing their broken power grid.

It's not just women's rights, but pretty much the rights of every marginalized group and poor people. It's kind of a **** hole tbh.