Political Roundtable Part XXX

[AFM]

Watch on YouTube

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=aaSXD5f8LIp0apO5RVGjOA&s=19

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=lBIv0y84JIC2LmH64eMIwg&s=19

[Zonkerbl]

Josh Hawley's plan is to ask questions as if he is some ignorant rube with no understanding of the law so that he can generate right wing talking points in his questioning of KBJ, but if you watch the actual footage (which I'm sure very few of his constituents will) he comes across as an ignorant rube with no understanding of the law.

[closg00]

Josh Hawley's plan is to ask questions as if he is some ignorant rube with no understanding of the law so that he can generate right wing talking points in his questioning of KBJ, but if you watch the actual footage (which I'm sure very few of his constituents will) he comes across as an ignorant rube with no understanding of the law.

On it's face the CRT and porn sentencing lines of attacks seem ridiculous and theatrical, but this stuff really works on their rubes, sure-enough I heard everything regurgitated back via callers to C-Span this morning.

[closg00]

Read on Twitter

?t=lBIv0y84JIC2LmH64eMIwg&s=19

Although more conservative Republicans dream of going back to a 1950's America, he did quickly backtrack on his comment

[queridiculo]

Although more conservative Republicans dream of going back to a 1950's America, he did quickly backtrack on his comment

Incredible.

I wonder if even for a second he realized how stupid he sounds for advocating that Roe vs. Wade violates states rights in light of the question regarding Loving v. Virginia.

[Zonkerbl]

Ugh I hate the way this argument is framed now, conservatives have normal people on the defensive when it should be the other way around

Read on Twitter

?s=20&t=bLTm9jf-vL-_l2qrkon8MA

[Ruzious]

Let's face it - we live in a f'd up country. It's pretty obvious when a traitor like this https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rep-mo-brooks-says-trump-asked-him-to-rescind-the-2020-election-remove-biden-and-call-special-election/ar-AAVqbdf?li=BBnb7Kz is still considered the leader of the Republican party. And that's just one example of many why he should be behind bars for the rest of his short life before going straight to hell. Almost half our country accepts contemptuous ideals and behaviors, so there are no surprises anymore.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=pcvrWl5fqIZf4Nk5eVXOtg&s=19

[Pointgod]

Josh Hawley's plan is to ask questions as if he is some ignorant rube with no understanding of the law so that he can generate right wing talking points in his questioning of KBJ, but if you watch the actual footage (which I'm sure very few of his constituents will) he comes across as an ignorant rube with no understanding of the law.

Read on Twitter

[popper]

After 10 or 12 years of posting here I'm reticent to add to the futility. My blood pressure has been manageable since I stopped. I find it fascinating that a thread where everyone that posts is in agreement, on an important subject like politics, can offer any morsel of enlightenment or understanding in the complex world we live in. It would seem to me that intelligent people would reach out to those that have differing viewpoints. Isn't that the only way that we can become more understanding of the world and wiser of its operation? I see none of that on this thread. It scares me for our future that dissenting opinions are not only not welcome on D controlled social media (where most ignorant Americans receive their news) but are literally censored so as to advance a narrative that serves the super rich and selfish elite.

The SC nominee can't define what a female is (although the question was presented as to what a women is, -- not sure if the distinction makes a difference). High school freshmen biology students, much less Ivy League law school graduates and SC nominees, should know the obvious answer to that question.

The SC nominee was asked and doesn't know when life begins. Again, any high school biology student knows the answer to that question.

What gives? Can you guys answer these simple questions and do you guys solicit dissenting opinions so that you may become better informed and wiser?

[DCZards]

After 10 or 12 years of posting here I'm reticent to add to the futility. My blood pressure has been manageable since I stopped. I find it fascinating that a thread where everyone that posts is in agreement, on an important subject like politics, can offer any morsel of enlightenment or understanding in the complex world we live in. It would seem to me that intelligent people would reach out to those that have differing viewpoints. Isn't that the only way that we can become more understanding of the world and wiser of its operation? I see none of that on this thread. It scares me for our future that dissenting opinions are not only not welcome on D controlled social media (where most ignorant Americans receive their news) but are literally censored so as to advance a narrative that serves the super rich and selfish elite.

The SC nominee can't define what a female is (although the question was presented as to what a women is, -- not sure if the distinction makes a difference). High school freshmen biology students, much less Ivy League law school graduates and SC nominees, should know the obvious answer to that question.

The SC nominee was asked and doesn't know when life begins. Again, any high school biology student knows the answer to that question.

What gives? Can you guys answer these simple questions and do you guys solicit dissenting opinions so that you may become better informed and wiser?

Popper, I feel ya when it comes to staying away from this thread and how the debates here can raise your blood pressure. I rarely visit this thread so I don't know for sure to what extent dissenting opinions are welcome. I certainly hope they are, because as you say hearing different viewpoints is the best way to learn and grow in wisdom and understanding.

As to the SC nominee, first of all some of the asinine questions hurled at her and the disrespectful, sexist and racist manner in which she was treated by some of the Repub senators was disgusting. Pure and simple!

I believe Judge Jackson had every reason and right to not want to answer such questions as "what is a female?" and "when does life begin?" She's a lawyer/judge and not a doctor or biologist. The job she's seeking, as far as I can tell, does not require that you know with certainty when life begins or exactly how to define what a female is. And if there comes a time when she needs to know the answer to those questions, I'm sure Judge Jackson is smart enough to consult a doctor, scientist, biologist or the appropriate expert.

You suggest that those are easy questions. Well, I have to respectfully disagree. I think more people than you realize would not know for sure the answer to those questions. And most of those who think they know the answers are more than likely wrong.

[Wizardspride]

After 10 or 12 years of posting here I'm reticent to add to the futility. My blood pressure has been manageable since I stopped. I find it fascinating that a thread where everyone that posts is in agreement, on an important subject like politics, can offer any morsel of enlightenment or understanding in the complex world we live in. It would seem to me that intelligent people would reach out to those that have differing viewpoints. Isn't that the only way that we can become more understanding of the world and wiser of its operation? I see none of that on this thread. It scares me for our future that dissenting opinions are not only not welcome on D controlled social media (where most ignorant Americans receive their news) but are literally censored so as to advance a narrative that serves the super rich and selfish elite

As far as I know, there's no rule saying conservatives can't post in this thread.

I don't believe this board has very many and the ones that are here choose not to post.


That's their prerogative....

[Ruzious]

After 10 or 12 years of posting here I'm reticent to add to the futility. My blood pressure has been manageable since I stopped. I find it fascinating that a thread where everyone that posts is in agreement, on an important subject like politics, can offer any morsel of enlightenment or understanding in the complex world we live in. It would seem to me that intelligent people would reach out to those that have differing viewpoints. Isn't that the only way that we can become more understanding of the world and wiser of its operation? I see none of that on this thread. It scares me for our future that dissenting opinions are not only not welcome on D controlled social media (where most ignorant Americans receive their news) but are literally censored so as to advance a narrative that serves the super rich and selfish elite.

The SC nominee can't define what a female is (although the question was presented as to what a women is, -- not sure if the distinction makes a difference). High school freshmen biology students, much less Ivy League law school graduates and SC nominees, should know the obvious answer to that question.

The SC nominee was asked and doesn't know when life begins. Again, any high school biology student knows the answer to that question.

What gives? Can you guys answer these simple questions and do you guys solicit dissenting opinions so that you may become better informed and wiser?

Popper, I would suggest looking in the mirror. Pretty sure there's been nothing stopping you from posting other than yourself.

Btw, it's interesting that SC also stands for South Carolina, and the Senator from SC has taken this opportunity to perform like he's in a sickening play for his political validation. He started out by saying This won't be a circus, and then he proceeded to make it exactly that. Meanwhile, you're seriously trying to say she doesn't know what a female is. Really? She just might have a better idea than the people questioning her do. Pretty pathetic how hard ol pale folk like Graham are trying for sound bites for their appearances on the Hannity show.

[Zonkerbl]

Conservatives are welcome here. Just bear in mind that this is a marketplace of ideas and I personally won't tolerate flimflammery and will knock bad ideas out of the park, just as they deserve. If that makes you feel uncomfortable you can leave, as many of you have, which is sad because then I don't know what terrible ideas the bad guys are cooking up. If the other people on this board are being mean to you I suggest you address your problems to them like an adult rather than vaguely complaining about not being tolerated. Be assertive.

"Woman" is a gender role. It is not a judge's job to define gender roles. It is not a biology question, it is a social construct. We players of the game of life determine what "woman" means, not the SCOTUS, who is the arbiter of the terrifying power of the government's monopoly on violence. I'll be damned if I'll allow someone to use the threat of government violence to force an answer down my throat. I thought you were a conservative Popper?

Life begins at conception. Are viruses people Popper? They're also alive. Being alive doesn't make you a person with rights that trump those of the mother. Is a zygote a person? No. That's a religious view, not an evidence based one. A fetus can be treated legally like a person when they are viable. Viability is a fact, not a belief. Any other criteria for personhood is using the terrifying power of the government's monopoly on violence to force a religious belief down my throat. Unacceptable.

[pancakes3]

It scares me for our future that dissenting opinions are not only not welcome on D controlled social media (where most ignorant Americans receive their news) but are literally censored so as to advance a narrative that serves the super rich and selfish elite.

universal health care
universal child care
free college
wealth tax
UBI/living wage

[doclinkin]

It scares me for our future that dissenting opinions are not only not welcome on D controlled social media (where most ignorant Americans receive their news) but are literally censored so as to advance a narrative that serves the super rich and selfish elite.

There's a brain-twisting jiu jitsu going on in this statement. How are Democrats in control of social media? A billionaire with a supermonopoly controls the majority of the discourse. His company profited from millions of dollars of ads and content flowing in from Russia to sway elections towards the prior president. He had a closed door meeting with the last president of which there were no witnesses and no notes taken. His company admitted to malfeasance in looking the other way from Russian election interference, and subsequently tightened the rules only when it was clear a new administration would be in charge. Tightened rules to prevent the deliberate spread of information that was demonstrably false. Since it was clear people were discussing better regulation here. We have libel and defamation laws that apply to speech and print media, why should these laws not apply online?

Yes media companies in general serve the super rich. As does the republican party, more so than those on the other end of the political spectrum who are so "selfish" they are commonly charged with being socialists for laws enacted to tame major corporations or close tax loopholes for the super rich --in order to pay for programs that protect working families (health care, child care, etc). Two democrats and every single republican have blocked a platform of substantive laws that expand education for the non-elite, protect children, the elderly and disabled. https://www.whitehouse.gov/build-back-better/

And to reduce our dependence on the same fossil fuels that gave Russia confidence they could exert control over Europe and blunt any actions they would take to prevent invasions of sovereign neighbors.

Democrats like Warren or Bernie have worked their entire political careers to prevent corporations and big money from having undue sway over our elections.

How have republican voices been stifled when there is a multi-billion dollar news organization that exists specifically to further that viewpoint? To advance a political mindset even when proven factually incorrect. Even though various studies have shown their information to be about 49% biased and unfactual.

This may be a case where reality is small D democratic. The reason why there are more voices heard on one side of an issue in social media could simply be more people who support these ideas are likely to show up to post on the topic. The fact that Republicans have to stifle election turnout and gerrymander political districts to stay in power suggests they understand they speak for fewer and fewer people in the US. And serve mostly the same big money you are accusing the other side of being controlled by. If it feels like you are being ganged up on, it could be you are expressing unpopular opinions. Popular meaning fewer people agree with you. As in, in a democratic country, they would be voted down.

This thread and this board work pretty hard to allow people to post whatever they think or feel. Only a few people have been banned, and then only for spamming the board and stifling discourse. Doesn't mean you won't get your blood pressure raised by people who passionately disagree with you.

Ultimately I think the internet has served to divide and politicize our country, pointlessly. Dangerously. I agree we should be able to talk about things to get to th ekernel of our agreement and work from there. It is mindbending to me how history can judo-flip us all to the opposite position. The past few years have spun Lefty folks into supporting the deep state and US intelligence agencies, and find themselves vehemently arguing on behalf of gigantic multinational pharmaceutical companies that are profiting from a pandemic. Yes there are good reasons for it, but as a kid who was walking in protests in the Reagan era against this sort of thing, it is an alien feeling.

I think on an individual level we pretty much each can get along with anyone else who believes differently than ourselves. If you work next to a guy you can understand where he is coming from. If you cheer for the same sports team you can forgive some differences in opinions elsewhere. Or suspend your righteous rage for a few distracted moments anyway. Yes this is a time with significant cultural shifts happening. Change is upsetting. You can be suspicious of a brown woman who you are told spearheads a viewpoint that you disagree with. She is brown and female, therefore different than what we are used to in that position. Therefore she may have alien ideas that prove upsetting. In this case arguing over whether biological definitions should be subject to law, and how. Ok, but you cannot argue that this Harvard educated and thoughtful woman is not experienced or smart enough to hear discussions on the topic. If she is deft enough not to be cornered on these issues and opt out of discussing the hot-button topics that will tend to inflame the people who are ready to disagree with whatever she says, then I'd say that argues for her temperament and you know, judgment. You know the game being played, you know she would be stupid to definitively answer those questions. True, it is possible she might personally disagree with your viewpoint on those topics. If so would it be sensible for her to say so?

Still. If you are arguing that we should hear different viewpoints, on this board. Shouldn't that be the case at the highest levels of government as well? Even with KBJ confirmed, there is a 6-3 conservative supermajority on the supreme court. If our country is roughly split down the middle on what we believe (regardless of feeling outnumbered) shouldn't our legal governing bodies more fairly represent this split as well? That way we can work towards compromises that help knit the country together instead of further dividing us. Seems to me if you are arguing that viewpoints be equally heard, you would also argue that every now and again we should be able to hear out opposing viewpoints to see if our arguments are solid. Strong. If they hold up under fire. Are you concerned that somehow the voice of one black woman will blow holes in your viewpoint? If so then maybe it is a weak viewpoint that needs to be re-thought.

[Zonkerbl]

Censorship is not when people disagree with you. Censorship is when the govt points a gun at you and tells you to shut up. No one in this thread is doing that. No one in the media is doing that. The billionaire owned right wing media is telling you this, but it is a lie. They want you to perceive us as your enemy, instead of realizing who the real enemy is - them. Fox News. All the billionaire run right wing propaganda machines. They want the poors like us to squabble among ourselves, rather than rising up together and guillotining the true villains.

[Zonkerbl]

is it trolling to drop into a thread like this, throw out wild accusations about censorship and spread white wing conspiracy talking points, stir up a bunch of discussion and then not respond to any of it?