The All Things Political Topic

[BruceVC]

5 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

Fortunately democracies have never ever fallen after electing a putative strongman, so it's fine.

Yes, I agree and thats why I keep saying the US and world will be fine after Trumps term is over. Democracy will survive 

But its also parody and not meant to be taken seriously 

[Pidesco]

6 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Yes, I agree and thats why I keep saying the US and world will be fine after Trumps term is over. Democracy will survive 

But its also parody and not meant to be taken seriously 

Your sarcasm detector is on the fritz.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Pidesco said:

Your sarcasm detector is on the fritz.

Oh, okay I understand what you meant 

But the USA is not Nazi Germany for several reasons. The main difference is Trump only has 4 years and then he is  gone 

 

[Lexx]

10 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

The main difference is Trump only has 4 years and then he is  gone 

Because he will end his presidency or because he's died of bad health till then?

[majestic]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Trump needs to educate himself on which countries are part of BRICS 

 

Somehow that reminds me of something. Wait a minute...

Ah, yeah. Found it.

 

[Also gorgon]

Google image search results for "Heil Musk".

 

 

Edited 11 hours ago by Also gorgon

[Pidesco]

27 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Oh, okay I understand what you meant 

But the USA is not Nazi Germany for several reasons. The main difference is Trump only has 4 years and then he is  gone 

 

Fortunately Nazi Germany is the one and only example ever of a strongman getting elected and turning a country into an authoritarian state, so it's fine.

[HoonDing]

It's regrettable this shirthole country will drag the entire world down with it.

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Oh, okay I understand what you meant 

But the USA is not Nazi Germany for several reasons. The main difference is Trump only has 4 years and then he is  gone 

 

I am sure Von Papen, Ludendorff and others didn't notice it until too late. That said, probably not. I am pretty sure they'll have a civil war rather than become some fascist theocracy.

Edited 10 hours ago by Malcador

[Zoraptor]

6 hours ago, Malcador said:

Sort of an irrelevant retort, why shouldn't the US support the WHO? Because now you buy into Russian talking points?

They aren't even really Russian talking points. It's not like Russia is withdrawing after all.

US dislike of the WHO is pretty much entirely on, well, the US. Exceptionalism, dislike of certain provisions around price gouging and generics with a big dose of "thou shalt not embarrass Israel!" added on.

5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

The WHO can get this funding from other countries and as @Elerond mentioned  BRICS are hardly providing any funding and they can definitely full the gap if the WHO matters. I didnt realize BRICS members contributed so little

Elerond's figures are for voluntary contributions, not overall contributions. They all contribute on an assessed basis as well.

(While clearly labelled as such you just knew as soon as you saw it that someone would quote them as if they were the overall contribution instead)

1 hour ago, Pidesco said:

Fortunately Nazi Germany is the one and only example ever of a strongman getting elected and turning a country into an authoritarian state, so it's fine.

Hitler wasn't even properly elected, he got ~33% of the vote- down from ~38 in the previous election. And was basically last cab off the rank even so far as arch nationalist Hindenburg was concerned.

Should have made Paul von Lettow Vorbeck Chancellor instead.

[Azdeus]

I want to congratulate all you American forum members of joining the fairer sex!

[Bartimaeus]

One thing I'm going to miss about the past four years of the Biden administration was how precious little anybody had to say about it. This is day one and I'm already getting bombarded by friends and family with all of the old nonsense that I'm trying to avoid. It's like everyone is terminally addicted to Trump, one way or another.

[majestic]

1 hour ago, Azdeus said:

I want to congratulate all you American forum members of joining the fairer sex!

That looks like like they mean to determine sex based on chromosome alignment at conception, or directly after the first mitosis, i.e. when you have your frist two embyronic (diploid) cells. Therefore, if you have XX chromosomes, you're female, and if you have XY chromosomes, you're male.

I can already hear the outrage when XX men are allowed to compete in women's sports or use women's restrooms or go to women's prisons. I mean they're usually perfectly male, just infertile, and thus usually only diagnosed when they can't father children, but they were biologically female at or shortly after conception, their development just did not go as expected. Meanwhile it'll be a boon for women's competions, because that finally puts a lid on the debate about intersex women. They're men.

Is there an exception for Turner syndrome women? I mean they only have one chromosome, so that's a little tricky, but they're female.

Edit: @Azdeus I know you're getting at the fact that all embryos initially develop with female genitalia, but I don't think that is what they meant. They aren't present at conception, and only show (as female genitalia) after ~9 weeks of development. Pretty sure they're meaning the chromosome makeup here.

Edited 6 hours ago by majestic

[Azdeus]

30 minutes ago, majestic said:

That looks like like they mean to determine sex based on chromosome alignment at conception, or directly after the first mitosis, i.e. when you have your frist two embyronic (diploid) cells. Therefore, if you have XX chromosomes, you're female, and if you have XY chromosomes, you're male.

I can already hear the outrage when XX men are allowed to compete in women's sports or use women's restrooms or go to women's prisons. I mean they're usually perfectly male, just infertile, and thus usually only diagnosed when they can't father children, but they were biologically female at or shortly after conception, their development just did not go as expected. Meanwhile it'll be a boon for women's competions, because that finally puts a lid on the debate about intersex women. They're men.

Is there an exception for Turner syndrome women? I mean they only have one chromosome, so that's a little tricky, but they're female.

Edit: @Azdeus I know you're getting at the fact that all embryos initially develop with female genitalia, but I don't think that is what they meant. They aren't present at conception, and only show (as female genitalia) after ~9 weeks of development. Pretty sure they're meaning the chromosome makeup here.

I know you know I know what you mean, but do they know that they don't know what they mean? Because as you point out they be big dumdum, and this doesn't actually solve anything and creates more problems. Man... if only they had some expert in I dunno, maybe gender studies to help them out?

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Azdeus said:

I want to congratulate all you American forum members of joining the fairer sex!

Luckily the US is a post factual state

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

2 hours ago, Azdeus said:

I know you know I know what you mean, but do they know that they don't know what they mean? Because as you point out they be big dumdum, and this doesn't actually solve anything and creates more problems. Man... if only they had some expert in I dunno, maybe gender studies to help them out?

I think they're sliding that in as part of anti-abortion measures, personhood begining at conception is one of the main arguments used to argue for bans.

I'm sure there are a handful of people shocked that banning abortion is something Trump and his gang will try for.

[Hurlshort]

[BruceVC]

9 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

 

Elerond's figures are for voluntary contributions, not overall contributions. They all contribute on an assessed basis as well.

(While clearly labelled as such you just knew as soon as you saw it that someone would quote them as if they were the overall contribution instead)

 

https://www.who.int/about/funding

"Assessed contributions (AC) are a percentage of a country’s gross domestic product (the percentage is agreed by the United Nations General Assembly). Member States approve them every two years at the World Health Assembly. They cover less than 20% of the total budget.

The remainder of WHO’s financing is in the form of voluntary contributions (VC), largely from Member States as well as from other United Nations organizations, intergovernmental organizations, philanthropic foundations, the private sector, and other sources."

 

Assessed contributions make up 20% so voluntary contributions still make up the majority of funding of the WHO funding. And my point hasn't changed, BRICS countries barely contribute towards the WHO and they can easily make-up the US shortfall. Especially China, its not complicated