The All Things Political Topic - We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Bartimaeus said:

Is there any value whatsoever to anybody, least of all yourself, in trying to care about stuff happening on the other side of that planet that you can do practically nothing about?

is plenty o' reasons to dislike President bush, but he went against party and gained the ire o' many conservatives by not only caring 'bout a disease which at the time were considered a curse on homosexuals by too many in this country but by sending money to africa with almost no short-term roi prospects. sure, in 2022 we got kinda/sorta bipartisan support for pepfar, but such were most assured not the case at the time.

you and Gromnir can do little 'bout the hiv problem which continues to plague too much o' the world, but you may vote for representatives, senators and Presidents who care 'bout the same stuff you do, and those people collective may bring 'bout the changes you believe is appropriate. and sometimes, as in the case o' bush, determined individuals may bring 'bout monumental change. you caring might mean as little as self-educating and then voting for national level government folks who are capable o' making the world a better place, or at least a world a bit less terrible.

is a flood in bangladesh which kills hundreds or thousands tomorrow or next year. we have empathy for the dead and those survivors who must rebuild... again. however, unless we know somebody who actual died, is unlikely we weep over the bangladesh deadly floods. at the same time am forced to decide just how concerned we actually are 'bout the dead and future dead in places like bangladesh. how do we change our votes based on candidates who could do something? 

am honest enough to admit a Presidential candidate's position on infrastructure aid to bangladesh is not a priority. chilloutman is unlikely to be concerned 'bout anything bad happening in south america. *shrug* converse, while the khashoggi murder represents the death o' one reporter we never met, we would/will change vote depending on how our elected officials responded.

...

am also gonna recognize how at the time we were ambivalent 'bout bush's efforts to combat hiv in africa. helping were the right thing to do but the help were also representing  a whole lotta money and while we ain't a maga proponent am gonna concede we prioritize homeless US veterans over nameless and faceless multitudes in sub-saharan africa. is perhaps unfortunate a US President has more power to help those in africa than he does homeless and/or mental ill in topeka. even so, while pepfar were not a voting priority for us in the early 2000s, am glad bush were more caring o' the suffering o' those in africa than were Gromnir. 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 3, 2022 by Gromnir

[Achilles]

So...it was a long time ago and I admit that I didn't necessarily do a deep dive at the time, but didn't the aid come in the form of anti-viral drugs that were produced by a company with ties to Donald Rumsfeld?

Please correct me if I'm mistaken/remembering that incorrectly.

P.S. Which isn't to say that would shouldn't care, only that I remember Bush's "help" being not that altruistic.

[BruceVC]

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/kansas-2022-primary-election-results-024200093.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

A  interesting vote in Kansas around abortion and its going to be pro-choice that wins, to quote

It was the first popular vote on abortion rights in nearly 50 years -- and the first since the demise of Roe v. Wade. In reversing Roe in June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that abortion should be left to individual states.

A "yes" vote to approve the Kansas amendment would have effectively overridden a 2019 state Supreme Court ruling and would have cleared the way for GOP super-majorities in the Kansas legislature to enact more stringent abortion restrictions.

I wonder how much the  overturning of R vs W could change the political fortunes of some of the failed policies  of the Democrats? Will this matter in the midterms?

It will be the Republicans fault if this does change things because they were set for a resounding victory, exciting times

[BruceVC]

21 minutes ago, Achilles said:

So...it was a long time ago and I admit that I didn't necessarily do a deep dive at the time, but didn't the aid come in the form of anti-viral drugs that were produced by a company with ties to Donald Rumsfeld?

Please correct me if I'm mistaken/remembering that incorrectly.

P.S. Which isn't to say that would shouldn't care, only that I remember Bush's "help" being not that altruistic.

From an African perspective and specifically  SA it wouldnt have made a difference. During the time before anti-retroviral drugs HIV was causing real carnage and our government at the time, 2005-2009, had an ostensibly  ill-conceived and misinformed policy that somehow healthy eating can prevent HIV or rather the development of AIDS

The US anti-retroviral drugs are also supplied inexpensively  to SA and they are free  for people with a certain CD4 counts below 350.

https://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/countries/southafrica/what/antiretroviral-treatment.htm

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by BruceVC

[Zoraptor]

25 minutes ago, Achilles said:

So...it was a long time ago and I admit that I didn't necessarily do a deep dive at the time, but didn't the aid come in the form of anti-viral drugs that were produced by a company with ties to Donald Rumsfeld?

Please correct me if I'm mistaken/remembering that incorrectly.

P.S. Which isn't to say that would shouldn't care, only that I remember Bush's "help" being not that altruistic.

Rumsfeld was chairman of Gilead before he became SecDef under Bush. No idea whether Gilead supplied the drugs for the Bush program though.

Ultimately, that's probably a better use for aid than most of them even if some of it went to ~cronyism. Having babies born with HIV because mothers weren't given a prophylactic dose was utterly moronic. I'd be loathe to criticise it even if Rumsfeld got his pockets stuffed with cash.

[BruceVC]

15 hours ago, Chairchucker said:

Some would suggest that it is good to care about the lives of black people, too. You may have heard slogans to that effect, recently.

Most of that doesn't really seem to actually be remotely relevant to what I was actually saying. I'll just highlight this one bit, though.

"But if malaria became mainstream in the US I can guarantee you the US media would highlight this"

Here's what I'm saying: not just the US media, but also the Australian media, the UK media, etc. As I believe you've already noted, monkeypox has been observed in Africa since the 70s. When the current monkeypox 'outbreak' occurred, it was already all over Nigeria. Then it got to the UK, and suddenly news sources in the USA and Australia (not just the UK) cared enough to report on it. If Australian and US media don't care about diseases that are all over Africa, they don't really have much additional incentive to care about diseases that have hopped the ditch over to Europe. Except, of course, that the UK is a wealthier country, with white, English speaking people in it. Maybe it wouldn't hurt our media to also care when it's Africa being ravaged by disease.

"So in summary the suggestion that monkeypox is a  racist name is uninformed and ignores the history of this disease and how its spreading throughout the world"

Cool. I wasn't talking about that, though.

Sorry I got distracted yesterday and didnt respond. I want to be clear on your point so I dont make an unnecessary response 

Are you saying the Western media response to  monkeypox  is racist  or the actual government response in Western countries is racist?

 

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Achilles said:

 

P.S. Which isn't to say that would shouldn't care, only that I remember Bush's "help" being not that altruistic.

sure weren't particular helpful to bush. as we noted, at the time the President took serious political heat for the move which were unpopular with evangelicals and conservatives. am s'posing the idea is bush were willing to undercut his own political leverage to possible future enrich his defense secretary? after 2001 rumsfield was no longer a board member o' a pharmaceutical company, but he did have financial interest in gilead and gilead has a history o' shiesty shenanigans... and rumsfield sold most o' his gilead stock in 2005 making media worthy money by taking advantage o' the avian flu scare and the resulting explosion o' stock value 'cause o' tamiflu patents.  the patents gilead acquired on hiv drugs didn't happen 'til 2003, the same year pepfar legislation became law, which is gonna trigger the conspiracy folks but ignores actual timing o' relevant events. fauci were sent to africa by bush in early 2002 which were some time after bush had discussed the issue with other cabinet members.  so, a complex bush scheme to enrich not himself but rumsfield by supplying sub-saharan africa with life saving antivirals requires a bit o' conspiracy theory manipulation as well as all too common post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies.  tough sell.

HA! Good Fun!

ps am recalling a couple stories from ~2011 referencing a complaint from 2007 directed at gilead vis a vis hiv treatments. the underhanded stuff didn't involve the hiv drug patent per se but beginning in 2006 gilead were implementing functional forced licensing agreements. am uncertain what became o' the complaint, but am admitting if gilead were involved our starting (and admitted not complete fair) assumption is that they were doing something unabashed terrible to a mind boggling number o' people for an improbable amount o' time. 

Edited August 3, 2022 by Gromnir

[Chairchucker]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Sorry I got distracted yesterday and didnt respond. I want to be clear on your point so I dont make an unnecessary response 

Are you saying the Western media response to  monkeypox  is racist  or the actual government response in Western countries is racist?

Perhaps a little, yeah? If the word 'racist' is a sticking point, (which I get, because there are different degrees of this stuff and we here in the richer, whiter and culturally similar countries have been ignoring that continent for a while so I guess it's become the norm) I'm happy to rephrase it to 'There is almost certainly a racial component to which other countries our media focusses on.'

[BruceVC]

39 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Perhaps a little, yeah? If the word 'racist' is a sticking point, (which I get, because there are different degrees of this stuff and we here in the richer, whiter and culturally similar countries have been ignoring that continent for a while so I guess it's become the norm) I'm happy to rephrase it to 'There is almost certainly a racial component to which other countries our media focusses on.'

I understand. This is one of those debates where  we can agree to disagree, until the next one 

[BruceVC]

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/02/politics/senate-vote-burn-pits/index.html

Some good news and an example of Congress  working together to get meaningful legalization done , the long awaited veterans burn bill has been passed by the Senate 

Its very important that governments look after there veterans and this bill is an example of that 

[Gfted1]

12 hours ago, BruceVC said:

A  interesting vote in Kansas around abortion and its going to be pro-choice that wins, to quote

Smart of them and a great move. As of 08:31 they have a commanding 59% to 41% lead.

[Malcador]

17 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Smart of them and a great move. As of 08:31 they have a commanding 59% to 41% lead.

Stop the steal!

[Gromnir]

the kansas abortion numbers is the reverse o' the trump v. biden results from the 2020 election. is not a win issue for republicans.

however, given the US tribalism and polarization we see today, am unsure how much meaning we derive from the results in kansas save for as an issue-specific concern. sure, a whole lotta republicans is obvious reluctant to support a few o' the draconian abortion bans we are seeing implemented by republican controlled legislatures in numerous states, which would appear to reveal a disconnect tween the elected and the voters. even so, how many republicans in kansas, texas, ohio, mississippi or elsewhere will now vote for a democrat 'cause o' their personal pro choice stance? 

the republican party needs the increasing radicalized and angry base to win elections, but moderate republican voters, and many independents, will ignore or accept any gop excess as long as the alternative is voting democrat.

HA! Good Fun!

[ShadySands]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

the republican party needs the increasing radicalized and angry base to win elections, but moderate republican voters, and many independents, will ignore or accept any gop excess as long as the alternative is voting democrat.

Not at all the point but I find it very interesting that they still see themselves as moderate or independent when they'll go along with pretty much anything their party does.

As to the bigger picture, is there even anything that we can do? I mean, I'm not sure a pro-choice Republican makes out of the primaries in a red state despite Republicans generally being for some access to abortion and we don't vote directly on issues above the state level.

[Gfted1]

No worries, the president has used the Voice again.

Abortion rights: Biden signs new executive order on abortion rights: 'Women's health and lives are on the line' - CNNPolitics

Now Congress should act.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, ShadySands said:

Not at all the point but I find it very interesting that they still see themselves as moderate or independent when they'll go along with pretty much anything their party does.

As to the bigger picture, is there even anything that we can do? I mean, I'm not sure a pro-choice Republican makes out of the primaries in a red state despite Republicans generally being for some access to abortion and we don't vote directly on issues above the state level.

the most obvious solution is to get folks good paying jobs and health care coverage 'cause exploiting anger and fear is what folks such as steve bannon and limbaugh were doing extreme successful for the last couple decades. is far less outrage from folks who have financial security for themselves and their family. also, the more education a constituency enjoys, the less likely they is targets for radicalization. is largely correlative evidence supporting the tendency to see lower radicalization rates as education increases, but so what? get people more education and economic security and the crazy element decreases. so insofar as the radicals, all shady need do is reverse the trend o' red states to teach base approved curriculum via a pedagogy designed to not offend those who is already radicalized while simultaneous fixing the income disparity problem which has been growing for decades. ez peasy. 

am not seeing any fix for the complicity o' the vast majority o' gop moderates. you are correct in recognizing the truth that calling self moderate is dubious if you are willing to go along with the radicals. nevertheless, the radicals is at least 33% o' the gop in 2022 and to win in races 'gainst moderate democrats in battleground states, the radicals cannot be alienated if the gop wants to get republican candidates elected. is a transactional decision on the part o' moderate republicans to look away from the rot in the party.  how do you fix complicity if there is no practical bridge too far? the crazy o' january 6 and fed troops in portland kidnapping protesters didn't result in change? 

Donald Trump: 'I Could ... Shoot Somebody, And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters'

wasn't true in 2016. maybe not true in 2022... but am far less certain.

HA! Good Fun!

ps win no matter the cost is a US 2022 problem.

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by Gromnir

[Lexx]

Today I've learned that apparently you can legally lie in america to influence votes. America could be a great country, but crap like this keeps pulling it down into the sewers.

[xzar_monty]

14 hours ago, Gromnir said:

the most obvious solution is to get folks good paying jobs and health care coverage 'cause exploiting anger and fear is what folks such as steve bannon and limbaugh were doing extreme successful for the last couple decades. is far less outrage from folks who have financial security for themselves and their family. also, the more education a constituency enjoys, the less likely they is targets for radicalization. is largely correlative evidence supporting the tendency to see lower radicalization rates as education increases, but so what? get people more education and economic security and the crazy element decreases.

This makes so much sense that I suppose it's never going to be implemented. I'm fully in support of all the good things about the United States, but the rampant and utterly careless waste of human resources makes me quite sad. Jobs, health care, education: these are such simple solutions, but there just doesn't seem to be much interest in making it happen. (The "jobs" part is the hardest, I suppose.)

The US doesn't have universal health care. Education puts people in huge amounts of debt. I live in Northern Europe, and these problems look just staggering: why are they doing it? And yes, I understand the history of the country, and I also know that smaller countries are easier to govern than large ones. But still. I've traveled rather a lot, and the city on whose streets I've seen the most amount of people with untreated cancerous tumors is still New York. It's a wonderful city, BUT.

Also, altruism doesn't have to have anything to do with any of this. As someone pointed out (when talking about various developing countries), even if your only goal is to get to make more money, it's still in your interests to get the girls as well-educated as possible.

[Gromnir]

Kyrsten Sinema Is Demanding Democrats Keep A Tax Break For The Super-Wealthy

am not sure how many times on this board we has mentioned the hedge fund exception as one o' the few ez and obvious ways to address US tax issues. is not as if am particular insightful neither as guys like bill gates, warren buffett and a host o' other billionaire but not hedge fund managers has identified the hedge fund exception as a clear abuse which needs be addressed. nevertheless, sinema is backing the wall street guys which would be ok for a democrat in the nineties and if your name were clinton. take a quick peek at the calendar and see it is most certain not 1994. point is, am not certain how this doesn't add to the admitted long list o' reasons why arizona democrats is looking to primary the senator in a couple years.

...

previous to 2004 when she joined the democrats, she were a spokesperson for the green party. makes us wonder what sorta infernal bargain were struck by the arizona politician.

HA! Good Fun!

[Bartimaeus]

People are always complaining about Manchin, but if it weren't for specifically him being who he is, that seat in West Virginia would 100% be Republican. Be content that he caucuses with Democrats and doesn't block judge confirmations. Now Sinema, on the other hand...that I don't really understand, since it seems like she's just making her own constituents hate her. Last I heard, her approval rating was higher with Arizonan Republicans than Democrats...but it's not like Arizonan Republicans are going to vote for her come election time, so what's the danged point?

Edited August 4, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[Gromnir]

5 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

People are always complaining about Manchin, but if it weren't for specifically him being who he is, that seat in West Virginia would 100% be Republican. Be content that he caucuses with Democrats and doesn't block judge confirmations. Now Sinema, on the other hand...that I don't really understand, since it seems like she's just making her own constituents hate her. Last I heard, her approval rating was higher with Arizonan Republicans than Democrats...but it's not like Arizonan Republicans are going to vote for her come election time, so what's the danged point?

she is reasonably popular with independents, and arizona is an oddball state with ~30% identifying as independent. 'course for primaries sinema's popularity with independents and republicans is immaterial. only registered democrats vote in democrat primaries. 

her behaviour the past couple years is just so... weird. if there is method to the madness, we don't see it, and she ain't having any sorta consistency which would make these kinda moves predictable; can't even chalk it up as her being an idealogue. am admitted perplexed.

HA! Good Fun!

[ShadySands]

Yeah, I dunno about Sinema either and argued with Bruce or somebody who applauded her a while back. Best as I can figure she's angling for her post-DC gig because she's going to lose her primary and/or she's just on a power trip with no thought of tomorrow.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1 hour ago, Bartimaeus said:

People are always complaining about Manchin, but if it weren't for specifically him being who he is, that seat in West Virginia would 100% be Republican. Be content that he caucuses with Democrats and doesn't block judge confirmations. Now Sinema, on the other hand...that I don't really understand, since it seems like she's just making her own constituents hate her. Last I heard, her approval rating was higher with Arizonan Republicans than Democrats...but it's not like Arizonan Republicans are going to vote for her come election time, so what's the danged point?

As the resident hater, you should know that it's possible to hate more than one thing at once, even when they are in opposition. That a corrupt coal baron who lives on a yacht could be replaced with someone worse is not too much comfort when said yacht dweller is blocking what meager half measures are being attempted to stop the apocalyptic reality of climate change.

[Gromnir]

Sandy Hook Parents’ Attorney Tells Judge ‘Various’ Federal and ‘Law Enforcement’ Agencies Want Access to Alex Jones’s Inadvertently Disclosed Data

Judge Gamble denied the mistrial motion and indicated that Jones’s legal team likely would not be able to stuff the proverbial toothpaste wholly back into the tube.

“I’m not going to seal the quantity of information without knowing what’s in it,” she said.

Medical records, she indicated, likely would remain sealed.

“We can have a little bit of time while we’re waiting to research whether there’s some reason I should not allow Mr. Bankston to make those two disclosures,” she added, referring to the Jan. 6 Committee and plaintiffs’ lawyers from the Connecticut litigation.

after a brief in camera viewing, expected outcome is all those texts 'bout which alex jones took the 5th regarding post election voter fraud nonsense and january 6th is gonna end up with the january 6 committee and the doj. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Bartimaeus]

50 minutes ago, KP From Another World said:

As the resident hater, you should know that it's possible to hate more than one thing at once, even when they are in opposition. That a corrupt coal baron who lives on a yacht could be replaced with someone worse is not too much comfort when said yacht dweller is blocking what meager half measures are being attempted to stop the apocalyptic reality of climate change.

It just doesn't make sense to me to think of it from that way given the political reality of that particular seat being the darkest shade of red possible. Looking at a WV senatorial seat as somehow being in any way equal to a blue or purple state's senatorial seat is just...not realistic: nominate any other Democrat for that seat, and it's forever Republican again. Accept the small blessing that is the Supreme Court not becoming 7-2 or 8-1 conservative when Republicans inevitably win the presidency again because Democrats couldn't ever get control of the Senate at the same time that they had a president - Manchin was critical for that. The lack of Senate control in the latter half of Obama's second term was pretty key to the current breaking of the Supreme Court.

Once upon a time, the particular candidates for senate races mattered a lot more than they do now, so exceptions like this didn't used to be so uncommon and it lead to more "big tent" politics where the parties were able to get to the 60 senatorial seats required to pass general bills because their caucuses were allowed to have members with much more varied positions that would support most but not all of their party's positions, making it so that they could actually unite on and agree upon at least some bills rather than be in the never-ending fillerbuster deadlock that we face today (though admittedly, AFAIK the current fillerbuster rules are the most restrictive they've ever been). Now senatorial races are so nationalized that every single member of their respective caucuses needs to practically be in lockstep with each other or be dubbed a traitor (and god forbid they ever cross the aisle to support a common sense initiative that practically every voter supports for fear of giving the opponent party a "win"!), even when it makes zero sense for that to be the case. The situation is so dire that it seems likely the senatorial fillerbuster will be eliminated if Democrats are able to get to 52 or more members this upcoming November while retaining the House (though the former is probably a lot more likely than the latter, and if they don't get both, it won't happen), and there's a good chance of all hell breaking loose politically if that happens because they're likely to do some very stupid stuff with it that will lead to a huge backlash. If it ends up with Republicans back in complete control in the succeeding years, they will undo anything and everything Democrats tried to do...and worse. It is a most dangerous game when both parties keep pushing the envelope farther and farther out of "revenge" for what the other did, particularly when one of those parties is bordering on being openly fascist.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Bartimaeus