The All Things Political Topic - Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one

[Sarex]

54 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

I remember the picture and there was a very negative reaction to it internationally. The US military condemned the picture and said there would be an investigation. I have no idea what came of that, but pointing to a disgraceful moment for the US military doesn't excuse what Russia is doing.

Wasn't trying to, I just wonder how it would turn out. I don't remember this being covered in the international media at all, I was fairly young then so there is that.

[HoonDing]

Never seen it either, is it fake?

[Malcador]

There were photos of him published in his underwear, don't recall that one but wouldn't surprise me that US troops would do something like that.  

[Sarex]

In another particularly funny piece of news, Peter McCloskey (former Hague prosecutor) and Albert Moskowitz (former minister of justice for UN) along with Pierre-Richard Prosper (Ambassador at large for war crimes) are defending Hashim Taci.

[Zoraptor]

Not that funny really, 'international justice' being a joke isn't really funny. And sadly, it isn't very surprising either.

The number of things the international justice system has already managed to legalise in defence of western geopolitical aims is pretty staggering- and all done without thinking about the consequences more than two minutes ahead.

Want to take action over, say, ethnic cleansing in Ethiopia Western Backed System of Rules? Sorry, you can't any more as your verdict on Operation Storm legalised it- well, if it actually were a system of rules instead of a system of patronage. And as it is patronage those type of names who held those sorts of positions being involved in defending a western client is simply inevitable.

[Sarex]

Funny in the depressing sort of way, I don't think anything can be funny funny in the politics thread. Either way at this point I am not surprised by anything they do anymore.

[Gfted1]

Thats a pretty gross picture if real. I havent seen it before either. I was disappointed with a lot of the (rumors?) I read; he was sodomized with a bayonet, his (or was it his brother?) head popped off like a cork during the hanging, the body was stabbed after death, etc. 

[Zoraptor]

I've never seen that picture either, and my skepticism of it is... high.

The latter rumours were all of Iraqi misconduct though, not US, as the Iraqis were the ones that hanged him. The decapitation was definitely real- and absolutely deliberate- though possibly more humane than the alternative 'mistake' 'accidentally' used when hanging someone you don't like.

I'll spoiler it for safety:

Spoiler

Too long a length of rope --> decapitation; right length --> neck breaks; too short --> spend ages choking to death. It's not rocket surgery working out the length needed either. Easy choice on which 'wrong' version to choose though, if one had to.

 

[Guard Dog]

I seriously doubt it's real. They wouldn't be allowed anywhere near him without weapons, back up, and an officer to supervise. 

[Gorth]

13 hours ago, BruceVC said:

@Gorth  do you support the Oz system of mandatory voting?

I think it's a sound theory at least. Mind you, not being a citizen (yet), it doesn't apply to me (yet). So easy to say yay or nay.

One thing to say about i though, no matter how awful the cretin in Canberra is, you can only blame the stupidity of your fellow countrymen (unless you were stupid enough yourself to vote for him). Never mind that political campaigning down here is somewhat marred by the lopsided media coverage (courtesy of Murdoch media's not quite monopoly, but very significant market dominance). Only place in the world I remember that was worse off was Italy during the Berlusconi years.

 

Better public debate and more variety in available media during elections is also required for the idea of mandatory voting to work, or you end up no better than China. I.e. a de facto single party state and the outcome of elections being more of an approval rating than a choice.

 

Edit: Quite, not Quote

 

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

I think it's a sound theory at least. Mind you, not being a citizen (yet), it doesn't apply to me (yet). So easy to say yay or nay.

One thing to say about i though, no matter how awful the cretin in Canberra is, you can only blame the stupidity of your fellow countrymen (unless you were stupid enough yourself to vote for him). Never mind that political campaigning down here is somewhat marred by the lopsided media coverage (courtesy of Murdoch media's not quote monopoly, but very significant market dominance). Only place in the world I remember that was worse off was Italy during the Berlusconi years.

 

Better public debate and more variety in available media during elections is also required for the idea of mandatory voting to work, or you end up no better than China. I.e. a de facto single party state and the outcome of elections being more of an approval rating than a choice.

Great answer Gorthfuscious , I was just checking because you not an Oz citizen yet and you dont want to be seen as opposed to the Oz political system. We can now tick that box on your application form.....you passed 

[BruceVC]

6 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

Thats a pretty gross picture if real. I havent seen it before either. I was disappointed with a lot of the (rumors?) I read; he was sodomized with a bayonet, his (or was it his brother?) head popped off like a cork during the hanging, the body was stabbed after death, etc. 

He was executed by the new Iraqi government in 2006 and their was lots of fake news around this like he was found hiding in a hole in his underwear. But Im surprised anyone would feel aggrieved by how he was  treated or arrested. Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, Iranians and Kurds during his dictatorship. He used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians. Our sympathy should be for his victims 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Saddam_Hussein

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

10 hours ago, Malcador said:

There were photos of him published in his underwear, don't recall that one but wouldn't surprise me that US troops would do something like that.  

Were you surprised by the war crimes committed by the Russian army in Ukraine? Im taking about the mass rape, bombing of civilian buildings and execution of hundreds\thousands of civilians with their hands tied behind their backs

Or were you  not surprised ?

[Chairchucker]

4 hours ago, Gorth said:

One thing to say about i though, no matter how awful the cretin in Canberra is, you can only blame the stupidity of your fellow countrymen (unless you were stupid enough yourself to vote for him).

Also we've got preferential voting, so even if (when) they 'both' suck you can vote for someone else and still contribute to keeping the less good candidate out of power.

[BruceVC]

4 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Also we've got preferential voting, so even if (when) they 'both' suck you can vote for someone else and still contribute to keeping the less good candidate out of power.

Who do you typically vote for in Oz elections? I dont know much about the Oz political parties left or right leanings so if you can explain your reasons that would be great...just a summary, not too much detail 

[Chairchucker]

3 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Who do you typically vote for in Oz elections? I dont know much about the Oz political parties left or right leanings so if you can explain your reasons that would be great...just a summary, not too much detail 

I will be preferencing independents and parties with progressive policies, including the Greens party which is (kinda?) our third biggest party, then Labor. (Despite the fact that they embarrassingly spell their party the American way.) I'll have to read up a little on the latest changes to voting rules, but I believe these days I don't need to continue numbering past the first 6, in the senate at any rate, but if I did, I'd go Liberal after Labor, then the various conservative minor parties. (For some of these parties, read 'conservative' as 'racist and or/antivaxx')

 

Specific policy leanings that I care about that will be contributing to Labor being at the bottom of that stack:

I would prefer we treat refugees more humanely. Labor still seems to favour trying to discourage people from trying to seek refuge via boat, by making the experience less pleasant.

I would prefer we listen to the scientific consensus that we're damaging our earth and should knock it off. Labor still seems to favour building new coal power plants.

 

Those are the biggest things keeping Labor on the bottom of that stack. I think one of the reasons I like Independents and will probs preference them high in the senate is they're not beholden to a party; I get the impression there are probs people within the Labor party who would prefer not to be setting fire to our planet, but are required to toe the party line. Side note, both our two major political parties accept millions in donations from coal companies. So that's another thing I don't love.

 

Other things are the usual 'not treating LGBT people like garbage under the guise of religious freedoms', 'making education free', 'supporting medicare', stuff like that.

[Chairchucker]

I know you said you didn't need too much detail, but I've got the AEC website open on my other screen and I'm gonna break down my voting order for Senate and House of Reps.

House of Reps:

Green, Labor, Liberal, Liberal Democrats, One Nation, UAP (In House of Reps I guess I hate all the minor parties that aren't Green, hooray.)

Senate:

Independents David Po**** (lol I always forget about this site's dumb language filter) and Kim Rubenstein (still not sure on order), then (a lot of this is not yet settled, gonna delve through websites and see what I think) Australian Progressives, Greens, Animal Justice Party, Sustainable Australia (not sure tho) Legalise Cannabis Australia, (LOL. I'll check out their policies tho) Fuxin Li, Labor, (my votes will probs actually end here, but if I had to number them all....) Liberal, UAP, Informed Medical Options Party (Actual antivaxxers, screw these guys)

 

If you see someone after the Liberal party in my rankings, I think they suck a lot.

Edited April 28, 2022 by Chairchucker

[Gromnir]

didn't use parentheticals, so am wondering if the person responsible for the fox news chyrons were aware o' repeating greene's spelling error. either way, is kinda amusing.

Christians Aid Migrants Because Church Is Run By Satan, Marjorie Taylor Greene Says

"In a clip from the interview released by the group Right Wing Watch, Voris asked Greene about Catholic organizations in the U.S. that use federal funding to help resettle undocumented immigrants and refugees.

"“I thought we had a separation of church and state,” Greene said in response.

"“What it is, is Satan’s controlling the church,” she continued. “The church is not doing its job, and it’s not adhering to the teachings of Christ, and it’s not adhering to what the word of God says we’re supposed to do and how we’re supposed to live.”

"She added that Christian groups that say you should take care of migrants are “destroying our laws” and taking advantage of Americans."

...

the sad part is am betting a few boardies agree with greene.

so it goes.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Chairchucker]

I have tried and failed a few times to articulate my reaction to the above re: MTG, I think I'll just settle for damn she is the worst.

[Gromnir]

curious, mtg owes her seat in large part to eric holder and barack obama, though admitted, J. Roberts subsequent made mtgs possible everywhere in the US.

shelby v. holder (2013)  were a preclearance case decided by SCOTUS. the voting rights act o' 1965 (VRA) among other things observed how endemic systematic racism in the south had been responsible for overt prejudicial redistricting in multiple southern states and counties across the US, leading to minorities being deprived o' the one person, one vote principle which were fundamental to the furtherance o' an american democratic republic. as such, under the VRA, the feds (doj) were to review state redistricting efforts to ensure there were no funny business being attempted which would disenfranchise voters.

the law problem with the statute were it applied selective to six states and a number o' additional counties as 'posed to the US entire. am suspecting you do not need a law degree to see why whenever a statute carves out exceptions, there is gonna be questions as to why such selective applicability would be equitable, yes? need a good reason to treat different. the fed review o' state redistricting is known as preclearance. 

in 2013, J. Roberts did a hand wave recognition o' the continued need for the VRA's preclearance provision:

"Regardless of how to look at the record no one can fairly say that it shows anything approaching the 'pervasive,' 'flagrant,' 'widespread,' and 'rampant' discrimination that faced Congress in 1965, and that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the nation."

SCOTUS scrapped preclearance and surprising to nobody save J. Roberts, southern states almost overnight redrew district voting maps to disenfranchise minority voters. 

...

the thing is, georgia republicans got the chance to redraw voting maps in 2010, and they submitted their plan under existing preclearance in 2011, two years previous to shelby. georgia's 14th district became noteworthy older and whiter. curious, eric holder and the obama administration approved georgia's redistricting plan w/o any request for adjustment, which were an unprecedented move at the time. 14th district o' georgia has been landslide red since the republican redistricting.

is gonna be more mtgs in the coming years thanks to J. Roberts, but curious, mtg were made possible 'cause o' eric holder and obama. go figure.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by Gromnir

[Amentep]

Clearly MTG was thinking Meadows was a comic book fan, and thought they might like Pat Mills and Kevin O'Neil's MARSHALL LAW book. 

3 hours ago, Chairchucker said:

I have tried and failed a few times to articulate my reaction to the above re: MTG, I think I'll just settle for damn she is the worst.

I'm not sure how anyone can disagree but...they apparently do?   I can only hope she gets defeated.

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

"Regardless of how to look at the record no one can fairly say that it shows anything approaching the 'pervasive,' 'flagrant,' 'widespread,' and 'rampant' discrimination that faced Congress in 1965, and that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the nation."

I always thought - and not being a lawyer it may be that I just don't get it - that was a weird argument from Roberts as clearly the reason the record couldn't show the 'pervasive,' 'flagrant,' 'widespread,' and 'rampant' discrimination like 1965 was the law was requiring preclearance and the states had learned that those things wouldn't pass preclearance. So apparently the law working was proof the law wasn't needed? 

I kinda get the idea of it continuing to apply to a limited states would be viewed as an issue, but...

[Malcador]

8 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Were you surprised by the war crimes committed by the Russian army in Ukraine? Im taking about the mass rape, bombing of civilian buildings and execution of hundreds\thousands of civilians with their hands tied behind their backs

Or were you  not surprised ?

Strangely irrelevant question, but not that surprised.

[Gromnir]

On 4/28/2022 at 4:55 AM, Amentep said:

 

I always thought - and not being a lawyer it may be that I just don't get it - that was a weird argument from Roberts as clearly the reason the record couldn't show the 'pervasive,' 'flagrant,' 'widespread,' and 'rampant' discrimination like 1965 was the law was requiring preclearance and the states had learned that those things wouldn't pass preclearance. So apparently the law working was proof the law wasn't needed? 

I kinda get the idea of it continuing to apply to a limited states would be viewed as an issue, but...

am gonna suggest J. Roberts were not wrong in the way you believe him to be... maybe. he were still wrong. many people, particular the lawyers, get overinvested in the value o' laws. china and russia both have Constitutions and their Constitutions provide more enumerated protections o' speech and assembly than does the Constitution of the United States of America. is a specific provision in the russian Constitution that gathering for peaceful protests is protected. am wondering if you has checked the news regarding protests in russia, eh? what do you think o' the protections o' peaceful assembly granted by the russian constitution?

J. Roberts recognized there were a flaw in the VRA 'cause it provided inequitable treatment based on the past misdeeds o' people many o' whom were long dead. at the same time, he believed discrimination in 1965 were not the same as it were in 2013 and he also understood the positive changes were less 'bout the civil rights and voting laws and more 'bout american's evolving notions o' acceptable social norms. Congress passing the Civil Rights Acts and the VRA were more important than the laws themselves 'cause pass such laws in a democratic republic represents changing attitudes regarding how human beings should be treated.

...

am not gonna suggest J. Roberts were in 2013 some kinda naïve utopian, but am thinking he saw societal changes post 1965 as making the specific provisions o' the VRA unnecessary, particular given the arguable flawed implementation aspect o' the law.  horrible mistake. citizens united v. fec exacerbated a problem which already existed: self interested politicians had a pecuniary motive for staying in office. gerrymandering were an effective tool for politicians to solidify power, particular with access to 21st century tools unavailable to the founders. so, even if J. Roberts were correct and the US south and voting districts across the nation were less bigoted than in 1965, the practical interest o' politicians in exploiting racial divisions had actual increased during the same period o' time. also, as Gromnir has observed more than once, evolution o' societal views regarding race is not unidirectional. regression and degeneration o' nation and community norms regarding race and gender is possible and the past decade o' polarization on issues o' race should make axiomatic that is just as possible for society to rot as to grow. 

laws is not near as important as most o' us believe 'em to be, a point we keep trying to make. J. Roberts understands that truth. unfortunately, in 2013, J. Roberts saw the evolution o' US society as inarguable and so he ignored the possibility self-interested politicians in the south and elsewhere would magnify old hatreds and grudges once the protections o' the VRA were eliminated. 

Roberts and the other Conservative Justices saw the VRA as flawed 'cause o' how the provisions o' the law were applied inequitable. as important, J. Roberts saw the VRA as no longer necessary 'cause americans were better than they were in 1965, which were just a horribly myopic pov. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Gorth]

Couldn't have said it better myself (as explained on the youtube page, a "season" is the time between two elections)

 

[Malcador]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-874f-dd36-a38c-c74f98520000

Going to be a hunt for whoever leaked this