US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

At least you didn’t expect me to read War and Peace!

Okay, let’s stop here. If it’s not legal in Russia, then it’s irrelevant if it’s legal in other places. Agreed? People often travel to the ME, get drunk and inappropriate, and whine that they’re treated unfairly, when they had to have checked out the local laws before they went. Kind of like Novak, who claimed ignorance of Australian laws, which didn’t make his case against them same laws any stronger.

Unfortunately, if that’s their laws, it might well be. Her career isn’t an issue they can be expected to factor into their legal deliberations.

Well, she didn't bring weed on purpose, in ignorance of the laws. According to her, it was a careless mistake. I totally agree that it's a limp excuse, but as I have said, I only half believe it wasn't a plant. Russia has a pretty poor record on human rights, and I believe the outrageously long sentence, at the very least, is designed to make her a political chit.

Novak actually wants to be a political football. The more noise he makes, the more victim he appears, the more he suspects he’ll get a pass.

I kind of agree with this. Also, I think he DOES see himself as a victim, in lots of ways. And he stirs up fans on social media to plead his cause. IMO.

The US can certainly try, but be careful, because the Russians will ask a high price that might have dire and murderous consequences down the line, and personally speaking, I’m not convinced America should go that route, especially if they also suspect she’s guilty. As you say, she uses this stuff where it’s legally accepted, so it isn’t beyond the realms that they caught her with it. A problem for the US govt, and the reason why I asked if you were being satirical, is that they’re compromised by identity politics and so will face pressure from the usual hustlers to rescue her because “she’s black, gay and female”, and not because she’s innocent.

As I say above, she may well be guilty. However, I don't think it's "identity politics" that will be the pressure to get her out. All I'm saying is that because of those facts of her, she is at risk in Russia, more than most. I don't see any reason not to actively call out factors that put her at risk. It's not always "identity politics."

If Russia use her to make a statement, they wouldn’t be dissimilar to other countries who do the same…

I don't see that Russia is using her to make a statement of any kind. I believe they are using her as a pawn for their own reasons. You may say that that is just the reason not to play that game, but it IS a game that is played all the time. I don't think there is a good enough reason to let her rot in a Russian prison. Sure, some terrible person may go back to Russia, but that person would be identified to the West and rather useless. Some other equally dangerous person will already have replace them, anyway.

 

[Kieran]

Well, she didn't bring weed on purpose, in ignorance of the laws. According to her, it was a careless mistake. I totally agree that it's a limp excuse, but as I have said, I only half believe it wasn't a plant. Russia has a pretty poor record on human rights, and I believe the outrageously long sentence, at the very least, is designed to make her a political chit.

A few presumptions in this reply and I’ll skip to them, because a lot of it I agree with, such as the severity of the sentence, and the history of Russia’s human rights record.

But it’s a huge presumption that she might have brought the gear by accident. That’s like the Sharapova defence. It still makes her culpable. In order for the Russkies to plant this on her, they’d have to know in advance that she uses this stuff. I believe the clamour from America would be huge if they knew she was framed.

I kind of agree with this. Also, I think he DOES see himself as a victim, in lots of ways. And he stirs up fans on social media to plead his cause. IMO.

Here they are, right on cue:

As I say above, she may well be guilty. However, I don't think it's "identity politics" that will be the pressure to get her out. All I'm saying is that because of those facts of her, she is at risk in Russia, more than most. I don't see any reason not to actively call out factors that put her at risk. It's not always "identity politics."

No, my point about ID politics is that your country is screwed by the worst, most wrong-minded and cynical forms of this and that’s why I wondered were you being satirical. There will be people who say that she should get special treatment on account of her gender, colour, etc, and this has zilch to do with anything, if that person is in the wrong. We often see race and gender being played as a card, and it’s a very low card from every perspective. But when I mentioned that it was to say that I don’t think that this can be raised in her defence.

She went to Russia freely, knowing their human rights records, and knowing their laws. She didn’t have to go there, but if she chose to go there, she knew she better be squeaky clean. And she’s not making very little money - she’s earning over $200k a year playing a sport that few people care about, funded largely by the blokes, and of course boosted by players like Grinner playing the race and gender cards, natch. She’s doing well enough to avoid places like Russia.

I don't see that Russia is using her to make a statement of any kind. I believe they are using her as a pawn for their own reasons. You may say that that is just the reason not to play that game, but it IS a game that is played all the time. I don't think there is a good enough reason to let her rot in a Russian prison. Sure, some terrible person may go back to Russia, but that person would be identified to the West and rather useless. Some other equally dangerous person will already have replace them, anyway.

I see what you’re saying but I don’t agree with your reasoning. Deadly criminals and enemies of your country deserve to be punished for their crimes, and should be kept where they are….

 

[Moxie]

A few presumptions in this reply and I’ll skip to them, because a lot of it I agree with, such as the severity of the sentence, and the history of Russia’s human rights record.

Fair enough, if we agree on some things.

But it’s a huge presumption that she might have brought the gear by accident. That’s like the Sharapova defence. It still makes her culpable. In order for the Russkies to plant this on her, they’d have to know in advance that she uses this stuff. I believe the clamour from America would be huge if they knew she was framed.

I have fully admitted that I have made some presumptions. But is it a huge presumption that it was in her bag accidentally? I don't think so. I travel a lot for work, and keep bags semi-packed. I have the equivalent of a men's shaving kit ready to go. There's no reason not to think that she has more than one vape device or whatever the delivery system is, and that she kept it in there, with back-up razor, toothbrush, mini-toothpaste, dental floss, bits of make-up, and face creams. I do not reinvestigate my kit every time I get on a plane. Neither do I use hash in a vape pen. And I like to think that I'm smarter than a 31-year-old professional athlete. But what I'm saying is, I could see how it could happen.

It's not at all like the Sharapova defense. The drug Sharapova used was banned right before the AO. She said she failed to read the memo. Griner would have known not to bring cannabis products to Russia, one would hope, but she says she brought them accidentally. I've made my case for how that could happen.

As to whether the "clamour from America would be huge if they knew she was framed," I don't see how we will know if she was framed. She has plead guilty, and maybe she is, to the charge, but I still think the punishment is too strong, and unwarranted. People tend to believe what they see on TV.

No, my point about ID politics is that your country is screwed by the worst, most wrong-minded and cynical forms of this and that’s why I wondered were you being satirical. There will be people who say that she should get special treatment on account of her gender, colour, etc, and this has zilch to do with anything, if that person is in the wrong. We often see race and gender being played as a card, and it’s a very low card from every perspective. But when I mentioned that it was to say that I don’t think that this can be raised in her defence.

I don't agree that my country is screwed by this. I think my country is more enlightened by this. It's a place where we differ.

She went to Russia freely, knowing their human rights records, and knowing their laws. She didn’t have to go there, but if she chose to go there, she knew she better be squeaky clean. And she’s not making very little money - she’s earning over $200k a year playing a sport that few people care about, funded largely by the blokes, and of course boosted by players like Grinner playing the race and gender cards, natch. She’s doing well enough to avoid places like Russia.

She went to Russia to make money while, as an athlete, she can. Wow...a "sport that few people care about?!" "Funded largely by blokes?" Did you mean to say that? Are we talking about the WNBA? Is giving women's sports their due too "PC" for you? I find the above shocking, tbh.

I see what you’re saying but I don’t agree with your reasoning. Deadly criminals and enemies of your country deserve to be punished for their crimes, and should be kept where they are….

Fine, but by the same token, do non-deadly criminals who carried less than an ounce of hash deserve to be in a Russian prison for 9 years? Maybe the US can find a lesser criminal to trade her for, but whatever.

 

[Kieran]

Fair enough, if we agree on some things.

And! We both love Rafa!

I have fully admitted that I have made some presumptions. But is it a huge presumption that it was in her bag accidentally? I don't think so. I travel a lot for work, and keep bags semi-packed. I have the equivalent of a men's shaving kit ready to go. There's no reason not to think that she has more than one vape device or whatever the delivery system is, and that she kept it in there, with back-up razor, toothbrush, mini-toothpaste, dental floss, bits of make-up, and face creams. I do not reinvestigate my kit every time I get on a plane. Neither do I use hash in a vape pen. And I like to think that I'm smarter than a 31-year-old professional athlete. But what I'm saying is, I could see how it could happen.

It's not at all like the Sharapova defense. The drug Sharapova used was banned right before the AO. She said she failed to read the memo. Griner would have known not to bring cannabis products to Russia, one would hope, but she says she brought them accidentally. I've made my case for how that could happen.

It’s the same as Sharapova in the sense that regardless of their different excuses, they’re both wholly responsible. Griner claiming it’s there by accident is irrelevant. If she claimed that. The pertinent fact is that it’s there.

As to whether the "clamour from America would be huge if they knew she was framed," I don't see how we will know if she was framed. She has plead guilty, and maybe she is, to the charge, but I still think the punishment is too strong, and unwarranted. People tend to believe what they see on TV.

I agree about the punishment but we’d both agree that they get to decide how to punish crimes. The only way the Americans can suspect she’s framed is if the vape brand is one she’d never use.

I don't agree that my country is screwed by this. I think my country is more enlightened by this. It's a place where we differ.

Hugely differ! But we still have Rafa and a lot of other stuff we can agree on, so we’ll battle that one another day, I’m sure.

But while we wait for that, have a read of this typically American slice of identity politics, regarding the case in point.

She went to Russia to make money while, as an athlete, she can. Wow...a "sport that few people care about?!" "Funded largely by blokes?" Did you mean to say that? Are we talking about the WNBA? Is giving women's sports their due too "PC" for you? I find the above shocking, tbh.

Really? Have the NBA stopped contributing to the WNBA? You said she went to Russia because she’s poorly paid. “Griner doesn't make enough money as an WNBA player not to have to play in a foreign country in the off-season, and therefore, Russia.”

She’s not poorly paid, she’s very well paid. And I give women sport their dues, though what I consider to be their dues might differ from what you consider it to be.

Fine, but by the same token, do non-deadly criminals who carried less than an ounce of hash deserve to be in a Russian prison for 9 years? Maybe the US can find a lesser criminal to trade her for, but whatever.

I can’t imagine that would work, somehow. The Russians will play tough on this. They smell a weakness…

 

[Federberg]

Boom! Definitely agree on the woke bit

 

[Fiero425]

Boom! Definitely agree on the woke bit

So where's she going to go; to party of liars, pro-lifers, & misogynist pigs? I bet she voted for Trump over Hillary! Silly woman; to be expected!

 

[Federberg]

who knows? Probably as an Independent. I wonder what happens re: November now. Is it too late to stand in a Dem candidate?

I honestly think the Dems need to stop gazing at their navel and understand that the vast majority of people are sick and tired of this woke shit

 

[El Dude]

I really hope she doesn't become a Republican. As someone on Twitter said, that would be like quitting meth to become a heroin addict. A few years ago she said she wouldn't, but now I'm not so sure. IMO, it would be a big tell. I hope she goes independent, because I'd like to think she has integrity.

 

[El Dude]

who knows? Probably as an Independent. I wonder what happens re: November now. Is it too late to stand in a Dem candidate?

I honestly think the Dems need to stop gazing at their navel and understand that the vast majority of people are sick and tired of this woke shit

Yes, agreed, though it isn't only the woke shit. It is the empty talk about progressive policies that they never really do anything about. And they keep supporting the war machine, further war in Ukraine, etc. Meaning, they aren't even really "woke" - in terms of making actual significant policy changes that help the working class.

And furthermore, they've become the party of censorship and "soft fascism." In the end, though, I think this illustrates the US two-party system best:

 

[Federberg]

And furthermore, they've become the party of censorship and "soft fascism."

100%

It's alarming that progressives don't seem to understand it. The two parties aren't that far apart as threats to democracy. In the short term, Trumpism and the denial of truth and facts represent a horrific threat to democracy. But in the longer term the threat against liberal democracy actually comes from the left. They also deny truth and fact when it comes to things like the trans issue. But even issues like the gender pay gap, racial grievance and feminism in general have an air of unreality about them now. It's toxic, puritanical and self-righteous and the average person is frankly sick of it. But progressives are so busy telling themselves they're the good people they've taken their eyes completely off the ball. As Trump would say... SAD...

 

[Kieran]

I really hope she doesn't become a Republican. As someone on Twitter said, that would be like quitting meth to become a heroin addict. A few years ago she said she wouldn't, but now I'm not so sure. IMO, it would be a big tell. I hope she goes independent, because I'd like to think she has integrity.

I imagine the problem over in America is, where do you go to have a chance to make a difference, if not to one of the twin monolithic corruptions? The system is really a faulty one. I remember watching the psychologist Jonathon Haidt somewhere saying that in politics, a one party system is the worst, obviously - but the next worst? A two party system. But what chance is there of that ever changing in America? And what would be the effect of that change, if a third party grew strong enough?

 

[Kieran]

So where's she going to go; to party of liars, pro-lifers, & misogynist pigs? I bet she voted for Trump over Hillary! Silly woman; to be expected!

But isn’t that like saying, “I bet she voted for poison over a bullet?” Weren’t both options just the same, only a different way of doing it?

 

[Federberg]

how is this guy in a statistical tie???

 

[El Dude]

I imagine the problem over in America is, where do you go to have a chance to make a difference, if not to one of the twin monolithic corruptions? The system is really a faulty one. I remember watching the psychologist Jonathon Haidt somewhere saying that in politics, a one party system is the worst, obviously - but the next worst? A two party system. But what chance is there of that ever changing in America? And what would be the effect of that change, if a third party grew strong enough?

Like most Americans, I grew up being told to "vote for the lesser of two evils." It doesn't matter if you're conservative or progressive, you vote for the lesser evil, because the other side are a bunch of red commies who are going to turn everyone gay or trans, or they're theocratic fascists who are going to force everyone to carry rape-babies to term.

My parents were counter-cultural types/hippies, so for me it was always "vote Blue no matter who." But I have since gotten off that track, and finally voted third party for the first time in 2016.

But I have since come to think that, in the long run, this approach actually perpetuates the problem and just reifies the two-party system. If you vote for one party or candidate just because the other guy is worse, you are essentially telling your choice that he/she/they only have to be slightly better than the other guy.

(And now we know that the Democrats are actually financially supporting the wackier MAGA Republican candidates, because they are (in theory) easier to defeat in the general. The so-called "pied piper" strategy, which of course helped bring us The Donald).

So I think the only way it will change is if enough people say, "enough is enough" and stop voting for the Dem or Rep. In theory, it could lead to either the birth of new parties that have more than a snowball's chance in hell, and/or reformation of the parties so that they offer better candidates, and/or don't sabotage any candidate that doesn't adhere to the party line.

On the other hand, I think the problem is deeper than any politician, any party, or really any political system. People focus on "capitalism vs. socialism," when both are corruptible. Or people endlessly squabble about traditional vs progressive values, when 90% of people agree on a lot of basic things...and all of the wedge issues are framed to highlight and increase division among the populace (e.g. "You're transphobic if you won't date trans people" or "no abortions, even if you're raped or going to die").

I mean, Noam Chomsky have written extensively about this: how a government propagandizes through dividing the people, so that they think the problem is the other half of the citizenry, rather than the psychopathic corporate oligarchs that both Republicans and Democrats ultimately serve.

 

[Kieran]

Like most Americans, I grew up being told to "vote for the lesser of two evils." It doesn't matter if you're conservative or progressive, you vote for the lesser evil, because the other side are a bunch of red commies who are going to turn everyone gay or trans, or they're theocratic fascists who are going to force everyone to carry rape-babies to term.

My parents were counter-cultural types/hippies, so for me it was always "vote Blue no matter who." But I have since gotten off that track, and finally voted third party for the first time in 2016.

But I have since come to think that, in the long run, this approach actually perpetuates the problem and just reifies the two-party system. If you vote for one party or candidate just because the other guy is worse, you are essentially telling your choice that he/she/they only have to be slightly better than the other guy.

(And now we know that the Democrats are actually financially supporting the wackier MAGA Republican candidates, because they are (in theory) easier to defeat in the general. The so-called "pied piper" strategy, which of course helped bring us The Donald).

So I think the only way it will change is if enough people say, "enough is enough" and stop voting for the Dem or Rep. In theory, it could lead to either the birth of new parties that have more than a snowball's chance in hell, and/or reformation of the parties so that they offer better candidates, and/or don't sabotage any candidate that doesn't adhere to the party line.

On the other hand, I think the problem is deeper than any politician, any party, or really any political system. People focus on "capitalism vs. socialism," when both are corruptible. Or people endlessly squabble about traditional vs progressive values, when 90% of people agree on a lot of basic things...and all of the wedge issues are framed to highlight and increase division among the populace (e.g. "You're transphobic if you won't date trans people" or "no abortions, even if you're raped or going to die").

I mean, Noam Chomsky have written extensively about this: how a government propagandizes through dividing the people, so that they think the problem is the other half of the citizenry, rather than the psychopathic corporate oligarchs that both Republicans and Democrats ultimately serve.

I agree with all of this but especially the bolded part. I think in the west in general we’ve now moved beyond knowing that actually a successful civilisation needs both progressive and conservative voices, working together, one to push and one to push back, and when it works then actual progress is made. Too much of one side or the other, and things stagnate or else get out of control with unnecessary changes and fads making a mess of things. As we are now, the prevailing culture is far-left, driving bad ideas about race, gender, and infiltrating every public system, but hopefully it will eventually turn back - but not completely. If conservatives were the prevailing culture, their own ideas would bring stagnation and division of another sort.

We need both, but the division is too strong now, and neither side seems willing to talk to the other, which is what catastrophe looks like, from a political perspective. As you say, one side are bigots and the other are deranged, and so who can cross the aisle and survive their own tribes wrath, if they decide to do deals with “Nazis” or “paedos”?

 

[Federberg]

You're transphobic if you won't date trans people

this stopped me in my tracks. Do people really say this?? Is that how people use the word transphobic?

 

[Kieran]

this stopped me in my tracks. Do people really say this?? Is that how people use the word transphobic?

Oh it gets much weirder and worse than that. If a lesbian doesn’t date a trans woman (a man, but with a female cock ), then she’s a bigot. This used to be the realm of satire but now it’s actually a thing. These trans nuts are not only trying to erase women…

The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women​

 

[Federberg]

Oh it gets much weirder and worse than that. If a lesbian doesn’t date a trans woman (a man, but with a female cock ), then she’s a bigot. This used to be the realm of satire but now it’s actually a thing. These trans nuts are not only trying to erase women…

The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women​

serious question... I want to know from any progressives out there? Is this ok with you??

 

[El Dude]

this stopped me in my tracks. Do people really say this?? Is that how people use the word transphobic?

I used it as an example of an extreme view that I've heard - so yes, some people believe this and advocate for it, but this not to say that all or even most trans people feel this way.

And that's part of the problem that I'm pointing to: extreme views are highlighted that wedge people apart. We see this on abortion, where a small minority of pro-choice people think that babies can be aborted even at full term childbirth, while a small minority of pro-lifers think that jerking off is murder. 99% of people are somewhere in between, and I'm guessing that 90% of people could probably accept a middle-ground (e.g. no abortions after the first trimester, except in the case of danger to the mother and/or rape - which I think is roughly what Tulsi Gabbard has advocated for, and been called "right-wing" because of it).

The article Kieran posted highlights this problem: "However, those affected have told me the pressure comes from a minority of trans women, as well as activists who are not necessarily trans themselves."

Meaning, it is a minority of trans women and activists who are pushing this, which muddies the water for those who are more reasonable, wedging people further.

 

[Federberg]

I used it as an example of an extreme view that I've heard - so yes, some people believe this and advocate for it, but this not to say that all or even most trans people feel this way.

And that's part of the problem that I'm pointing to: extreme views are highlighted that wedge people apart. We see this on abortion, where a small minority of pro-choice people think that babies can be aborted even at full term childbirth, while a small minority of pro-lifers think that jerking off is murder. 99% of people are somewhere in between, and I'm guessing that 90% of people could probably accept a middle-ground (e.g. no abortions after the first trimester, except in the case of danger to the mother and/or rape - which I think is roughly what Tulsi Gabbard has advocated for, and been called "right-wing" because of it).

The article Kieran posted highlights this problem: "However, those affected have told me the pressure comes from a minority of trans women, as well as activists who are not necessarily trans themselves."

Meaning, it is a minority of trans women and activists who are pushing this, which muddies the water for those who are more reasonable, wedging people further.

but then what's the difference with a gay guy calling someone homophobic for refusing to have sex with him because he's not attracted to men? I'm seriously trying to understand the logic. It makes absolutely no sense.

Am I the only one thinking that feminists are the dumbest fucks out there to not be actively fighting against this? I see Martina Navratilova has taken heat on the issue advocating for women in the past, and isn't this also the reason why people keep trying to cancel J K Rowling?

This is why keeping things simple and rational is for the best. You get born a dude, you're a dude! Sorry if it makes you sad. People who are born blind are blind. Their feelings about the issue are irrelevant, it's life. Why is the other so complicated? Very weird...