The All Things Political Topic - new edition

[Bartimaeus]

[Chairchucker]

On 4/8/2023 at 6:31 AM, Zoraptor said:

That depends entirely whether you're talking from a realpolitik or personal morality perspective though. Most (well... all) countries do so from the realpolitik one or a variation thereof- US domestic political considerations in this case.

Trouble with the moral approach is finding a major world leader who hasn't murdered someone, under the definition by which MbS has. His was just more obvious and publicised than others- and let's be frank, if he was not buddy buddy with Trump and Khashoggi didn't work for the WP it would likely have been put down as 'just arab things, what can you do?'.

What Biden is effectively saying is that Saudi is far less important to the US than, as just one example, Egypt- whose leader had thousands machinegunned on his direct orders post coup, and despite this Biden has been buddy buddy with at, say, COP27, November 2022- or any other country that has such a leader that the US doesn't criticise, should be fine with being used as a football in US domestic politics and should still do what they're told despite this. And it's mostly so because a climb down from Biden would be... politically embarrassing, domestically. You can't really get past the appearance, certainly if you're MbS, that the US isn't consistent and his main crime was being too pally with Biden's domestic political rival.

And of course if the US or west in general applied their stated standards even handedly most of their own leaders would be in jail too, but that goes without saying. Or not.

Firstly, yes, put all the politicians in prison.

 

I think some of the reasons the USA went in to bat for the ghost of Khashoggi a bit harder than for any number of other atrocity victims is that:

a. A lot of victims of atrocities are 'just' being exploited to an extra degree, and the USA is broadly ok with exploiting workers, whereas Khashoggi was actively murdered

b. They might want to set a precedent that it's not OK to silence journalists.

[Gfted1]

c. People like to get butthurt over randos dying. In the time it took you to read this sentence, around 9 people went belly up: World Death Clock (medindia.net) I hope this doesnt ruin peoples day.

[ShadySands]

If they were murdered then I hope their murders don't get away with it

[Gfted1]

Agreed, all crimes should be prosecuted. Except for the miserable who went to prison for a long time for stealing a loaf of bread. That right there is messed up.

Late edit: Chicago is about to put some reader into the fetal position!: Homicides in Chicago: A list of every victim | Chicago Sun-Times (suntimes.com) 

Sincere question, is everyone all ate up over these murders too?

[Zoraptor]

There's no reason why anyone would be unless there were special circumstances. If a random Chicagoite were lured into an Embassy and dismembered while alive that would get coverage too.

"One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic"

Good old Apocryphal, quote to fit any situation. And that one really does fit. People are way more likely to feel bad about the death of someone whose name they know and whose picture they see repetitively than about a long list of names or a big number; it's just human nature.

Edited April 10, 2023 by Zoraptor

[Gromnir]

Rebekah Jones' Viral Claims About Her Son's Arrest By 'Fascist' DeSantis Don't Match Available Evidence

no surprise we got lack o' consistency regarding facts, so smart thing to do is wait 'til at least after the may 3 court day before picking a side, eh?

whether is an autistic kid being arrested in florida, a shooting in wisconsin or a war thousands o' miles away, when facts is uncertain it is best to withhold accusations o' malfeasance until the picture become clearer. is nothing wrong with making guesses or coming up with a prediction, but if you are gonna accuse others o' wrongdoing, is best to wait until you got some kinda reliable facts before doing so. 

am not sure why people feel the need to be the first to accuse as 'posed to waiting 'til is meaningful support for an accusation.

litmus test.

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

14 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

People are way more likely to feel bad about the death of someone whose name they know and whose picture they see repetitively than about a long list of names or a big number; it's just human nature.

Thats a good point. I was bummed when Prince died. Tom Petty too.

[Guard Dog]

Tim Scott is running in 2024. We could do worse. Not going to vote for him. But we could do worse. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Tim Scott is running in 2024. We could do worse. Not going to vote for him. But we could do worse. 

Unless explicitly barred, Donald Trump is going to sweep the Republican primary and do splash damage to anyone running against him. I think the funniest possible outcome would be Trump being barred from the Republican primary and the Republican nominee, probably Rhonda Sanctimonious, losing to Biden.

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

Unless explicitly barred, Donald Trump is going to sweep the Republican primary and do splash damage to anyone running against him. I think the funniest possible outcome would be Trump being barred from the Republican primary and the Republican nominee, probably Rhonda Sanctimonious, losing to Biden.

I could see it. Well, whomever the 47th President is I'm just going to predict that he/she will be a complete fool who has no business being put in charge of a picnic, let alone the Executive Branch. That's not to say there won't be competent and capable candidates from both sides. There will be. But we'll never elect someone like that.  

[Gromnir]

On 4/7/2023 at 2:35 AM, Pidesco said:

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow

Here's an article for @Gromnir to comment on.

was busy for easter so kinda forgot to get back to this. apologies.

am having mentioned more than once how is a mistake to confuse questions o' right v. wrong with legal v. illegal, or even ethical v. unethical. 

there is no ethical code for the behaviour o' Justices. we might indulge in a reasonable extrapolation exercise and conclude that obvious what applies to all other fed judges should apply to Justices, but what should be is far different than what is, eh?  Justices is different than other members o' the judiciary 'cause not only is there no higher legal authority than the Court in the US, there is also no pool o' Justices who might step in for a Justice who otherwise should recuse self from a case. there is mechanical obstacles for imposing standards on Justices beyond the Constitutional hurdles. while Congress could impose term limits as well as increase or decrease the number o' Justices 'pon the Court, setting standards for Justice behaviour is likely outside the scope o' Article 1 powers. 

legal there was an ambiguity regarding reporting gifts to Justices and such ambiguities ordinary is decided in favour o' the individual subject to the law as 'posed to the author o' such a law. has been recent clarification that clarence should report all his trips and freebie travel expenses, but such is not gonna apply to past reporting questions. am not personal having knowledge o' all clarence gifts and his reporting activities, but it is possible that thomas' seeming self-serving non-reporting o' gifts were legal until recent. 

the thing is, early in the Court career o' clarence, he took heat from the media 'cause there were stories 'bout his acceptance o' gift/grift. clarence responded by seeking legal advice and instead o' changing his practice o' accepting questionable gifts, his solution were to stop reporting gifts as 'posed to stopping the acceptance o' gifts. the change justice thomas' undertook reveals awareness on his part that accepting gifts were impolitic at best as well as his conscious effort to avoid future scrutiny.  non reporting by thomas o' gifts received may have been legal, but is a far different query than deciding if thomas acted appropriate as a Justice. 

am also gonna observe how aoc acceptance o' her freebie met gala invitation and and failure to report gift bag goodies bothered us. 

regardless, am thinking there is gonna be people who try and argue what were the legal and ethical requirements for thomas while trying to ignore the more pertinent issue o' what were the right thing for thomas to do. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-scotus

Lmao

[Guard Dog]

Today is my 18,627th day of boycotting Bud Lite. Not because I care who they have deals with. Simply because it sucks. But considering breaking the streak to avoid being associated with stupid. 

[Hurlshort]

43 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Today is my 18,627th day of boycotting Bud Lite. Not because I care who they have deals with. Simply because it sucks. But considering breaking the streak to avoid being associated with stupid. 

Seriously. I don't follow Dylan Mulvaney (or any influencer, really) but she seems like a pretty positive person. These attacks on her and Bud Light are so weird. Why do people care?

[Malcador]

I like that people are buying Bud Light to film themselves destroying it.  The Internet was a mistake.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I had no idea who Dylan Mulvaney was until some very dumb people got obsessively mad at her. I still do not really know who she is.

59 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Today is my 18,627th day of boycotting Bud Lite. Not because I care who they have deals with. Simply because it sucks. But considering breaking the streak to avoid being associated with stupid. 

Good luck, the stupid has bought all the bud lite to film themselves shooting it.

7 minutes ago, Hurlshort said:

Seriously. I don't follow Dylan Mulvaney (or any influencer, really) but she seems like a pretty positive person. These attacks on her and Bud Light are so weird. Why do people care?

One upmanship and algorithmic incentives. A lot of these things are stunts by people competing for the attention of increasingly unhinged people whose audience constantly expects more.

Also they will start getting scammed into paying 30 bucks for a six-pack of piss water.

[Malcador]

What Anheuser-Busch needs to do is quickly make a spin off brand, maybe "Cis-Wasser"

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1 minute ago, Malcador said:

What Anheuser-Busch needs to do is quickly make a spin off brand, maybe "Cis-Wasser"

There's a good chance at least one of the "anti-woke" light beers, "Conservative Dad's Ultra Right Beer", is a white label Anheuser-Busch.

[Guard Dog]

15 minutes ago, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

There's a good chance at least one of the "anti-woke" light beers, "Conservative Dad's Ultra Right Beer", is a white label Anheuser-Busch.

You mean this?

[Malcador]

39 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

You mean this?

https://nypost.com/2023/04/13/conservative-dad-has-ultra-right-beer-amid-bud-light-dylan-mulvaney/

$20 for a six pack ?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

You mean this?

Unfortunately not, this is just a scam.

32 minutes ago, Malcador said:

https://nypost.com/2023/04/13/conservative-dad-has-ultra-right-beer-amid-bud-light-dylan-mulvaney/

$20 for a six pack ?

We can add shipping in there too.

[Gromnir]

am having no idea what the bud light story is 'bout as am only having seen it mentioned via on-line sources we don't consider to be newsworthy. has not been covered to any degree at npr/pbs, wapo or even cnn, so am not able to be bothered to educate our self further beyond a bare minimum. however...

did a quick search for dylan mulvaney, a name we did not recognize until @Hurlshotmentioned, and am seeing mostly nypost and newsweek articles... nyt has one story posted one hour ago, but am nevertheless not curious enough to indulge in what am guessing is some kinda faux outrage if is getting mentions from nypost and the national review. 

 

as to clarence thomas, am thinking the new reveals run into some o' the same problems as does the old in that many readers, particular if they is liberal, is gonna see a wrong w/o being able to specific articulate a meaningful legal or ethical mistake. 

admitted, when we hear o' harlan crow we immediate think o' justified

 

with a name like harlan crow, is difficult not to think appalachia royalty, eh?

the thing is, mr. crow(e) (dewey or harlan) never had a case or controversy before the Court. mr. crow did not receive any specific legal benefit from his gifts to justice thomas. so...

on a gut level most o' us is feeling it is wrong for a Justice to be accepting massive gifts from billionaires. admitted when is liberal billionaires making donations or gifts some boardies likely find a way to distinguish the wrong from what clarence did, but am nevertheless thinking the majority o' reasonable people see a problem with public servants receiving gifts particular if those individuals invested with the public trust is taking efforts to hide such gifting. why hide if it ain't wrong, eh? the thing is, while is not difficult to see what thomas did wrong, it is gonna be far more difficult to articulate a specific ethical or legal wrong.

even if thomas didn't report proper, the rationale for judges reporting gifts is not to prevent the accepting o' gifts but rather to prevent unknown conflicts o' interest from escaping scrutiny. the thing is, harlan crow does not appear to have benefited from the failures to report and Justices is functional free o' such burdens in any event as SCOTUS is different as stated previous. should not be so challenging to articulate an actionable wrong by thomas, but it is.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[ShadySands]

43 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

the thing is, mr. crow(e) (dewey or harlan) never had a case or controversy before the Court. mr. crow did not receive any specific legal benefit from his gifts to justice thomas. so...

It's still possible that he benefited from the outcomes of other cases in which he had no direct interest. Of course, things get a lot murkier without a clear link and there is literally no way to know anyone's true mind. Besides, even if the court were completely corrupt, I'd imagine that they're competent enough lawyers to come up with reasoning for anything. Or they could just be actual good friends.

54 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

on a gut level most o' us is feeling it is wrong for a Justice to be accepting massive gifts from billionaires. admitted when is liberal billionaires making donations or gifts some boardies likely find a way to distinguish the wrong from what clarence did, but am nevertheless thinking the majority o' reasonable people see a problem with public servants receiving gifts particular if those individuals invested with the public trust is taking efforts to hide such gifting. why hide if it ain't wrong, eh? the thing is, while is not difficult to see what thomas did wrong, it is gonna be far more difficult to articulate a specific ethical or legal wrong.

even if thomas didn't report proper, the rationale for judges reporting gifts is not to prevent the accepting o' gifts but rather to prevent unknown conflicts o' interest from escaping scrutiny. the thing is, harlan crow does not appear to have benefited from the failures to report and Justices is functional free o' such burdens in any event as SCOTUS is different as stated previous. should not be so challenging to articulate an actionable wrong by thomas, but it is.

Can't really argue with that. As a former gov't worker, I'm well aware that the appointed and elected officials have different rules and regulations to abide by than us rank and file folks, and have come to learn that the Supreme Court of the land has less accountability than most.

But I've also lost faith in the Court and most of our institutions, so there's that.

[Chilloutman]

looking at just picture of US beer makes my mouth lock tight. Noone should be forced to drinkn that thing. And Bud is also offence to my country. That piss water you drink lover there is ruining good name of actually decent beer