US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

When does "alternate facts" become too much? Fox News sneering at NYers for wearing masks during an air quality alert.

Fox News hosts mock people for wearing masks to block dangerous wildfire smoke

‘Are they all snowflakes?’ Fox hosts Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Jeanine Pirro mock dire health warnings as NYC records worst air pollution readings in the world

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Kieran]

When does "alternate facts" become too much? Fox News sneering at NYers for wearing masks during an air quality alert.

Fox News hosts mock people for wearing masks to block dangerous wildfire smoke

‘Are they all snowflakes?’ Fox hosts Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Jeanine Pirro mock dire health warnings as NYC records worst air pollution readings in the world

www.independent.co.uk

Or men dressing up as women and being called women - that might be even worse!

Here’s a hot take on Trump:

 

[Federberg]

so it's official. Trump is indicted. After so long. The colossal irony after all that 'Lock her up!' nonsense is almost comedic. But this one seems like very very serious stuff. Working on the assumption that this hardens his base, you have to think independents and traditional Republicans aren't going to be able to go along with him. I know many think that this could work in Trump's favour, but I just can't see that he's done anything additive. I can't see his percentage of the vote going up. Unless.... unless... there's a serious recession between now and November of 2024. That is not an impossibility...

 

[Moxie]

so it's official. Trump is indicted. After so long. The colossal irony after all that 'Lock her up!' nonsense is almost comedic. But this one seems like very very serious stuff. Working on the assumption that this hardens his base, you have to think independents and traditional Republicans aren't going to be able to go along with him. I know many think that this could work in Trump's favour, but I just can't see that he's done anything additive. I can't see his percentage of the vote going up. Unless.... unless... there's a serious recession between now and November of 2024. That is not an impossibility...

The Republican party has become the party of Trump, and they're uneasy with it. But they don't much do anything about it. Sure, indictments harden his base, but does it soften support for him in the party? They all keep waiting to find which way the wind blows.

If there is a recession, for example, or something else takes the Democrats down, does it necessarily mean we get Trump? I'm not sure. Long way to go.

 

[Federberg]

interesting.. I'm starting to discern a strategy from Trump's GOP rivals. They started off defending him, but they're now starting to turn the page. You'll here them say 'when I read the indictment...' I think Trump is in trouble. When these guys coordinate like this, they'll build a narrative and ramp up a unified attack. It's rather brilliant actually

 

[tented]

interesting.. I'm starting to discern a strategy from Trump's GOP rivals. They started off defending him, but they're now starting to turn the page. You'll here them say 'when I read the indictment...' I think Trump is in trouble. When these guys coordinate like this, they'll build a narrative and ramp up a unified attack. It's rather brilliant actually

Two words: Chris. Christie.

He‘s the only one who has the guts to go right at Trump, full blast, without hesitation. A New Jersey/New York fight. Get the

 

[Jelenafan]

Interesting article bringing forth the notion this may be Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court, in light of striking down Affirmative Action :

Clarence Thomas Wins Long Game Against Affirmative Action (1)

Sharply limiting affirmative action in higher education is a capstone on Justice Clarence Thomas’ 32 years on the US Supreme Court, where he has gone from outlier to ideological leader of the conservative majority.

news.bloomberglaw.com

 

[Federberg]

Interesting article bringing forth the notion this may be Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court, in light of striking down Affirmative Action :

Clarence Thomas Wins Long Game Against Affirmative Action (1)

Sharply limiting affirmative action in higher education is a capstone on Justice Clarence Thomas’ 32 years on the US Supreme Court, where he has gone from outlier to ideological leader of the conservative majority.

news.bloomberglaw.com

I think I posted an article about Thomas a while ago from The Atlantic. It definitely made me stop automatically reviling everything he does and says. Leaving aside the blatant corruption which is beyond troubling, there are aspects of his thinking which I find appealing. Let’s just say he’s more of a Malcolm X protege than MLK.

 

[Federberg]

Just thinking about the SCOTUS Colorado decision on LGBTQ. Is it possible that can also be used to fight this trans gender fascism - forcing people to ignore science for gender identity reasons?

 

[Federberg]

Just thinking about the SCOTUS Colorado decision on LGBTQ. Is it possible that can also be used to fight this trans gender fascism - forcing people to ignore science for gender identity reasons?

By the way I think the way that case got to SCOTUS was bush league. Those conservative justices were distinctly un-conservative. That was blatantly political. I think in the long term there will be consequences that will make conservatives regret the ruthless way they’ve pursued SCOTUS dominance. And this collection of decisions may well be the tipping point

 

[Moxie]

Just thinking about the SCOTUS Colorado decision on LGBTQ. Is it possible that can also be used to fight this trans gender fascism - forcing people to ignore science for gender identity reasons?

Perhaps you could define "transgender fascism," as a way of discussing it. The case was decided basically on the First Amendment.

 

[Moxie]

By the way I think the way that case got to SCOTUS was bush league. Those conservative justices were distinctly un-conservative. That was blatantly political. I think in the long term there will be consequences that will make conservatives regret the ruthless way they’ve pursued SCOTUS dominance. And this collection of decisions may well be the tipping point

I would be interested for you to elucidate this point further. Yes, SCOTUS has become blatantly political, basically since Bush v. Gore. The erosion of the esteem of the Supreme Court has possibly, yes, reached a tipping point, particularly as it comes to light that they flagrantly take perks with no oversight. There is judicial oversight at every level, except for the Supremes. And they are in for life. I do think there could be a shake-up coming. Certainly as to oversight on financials and as to where they should recuse. But I think life-time appointment could be on the table. For years, they sat above the fray, or seemed to. But that ended in 2000.

 

[Federberg]

Perhaps you could define "transgender fascism," as a way of discussing it. The case was decided basically on the First Amendment.

I actually did. I hyphenated a clause explaining

 

[Federberg]

I would be interested for you to elucidate this point further. Yes, SCOTUS has become blatantly political, basically since Bush v. Gore. The erosion of the esteem of the Supreme Court has possibly, yes, reached a tipping point, particularly as it comes to light that they flagrantly take perks with no oversight. There is judicial oversight at every level, except for the Supremes. And they are in for life. I do think there could be a shake-up coming. Certainly as to oversight on financials and as to where they should recuse. But I think life-time appointment could be on the table. For years, they sat above the fray, or seemed to. But that ended in 2000.

My understanding is that the case reached the court in an unusual way. Normally this happens after matters of law are appealed. Not the case here. This matter wasn’t even contested. The woman created a hypothetical

 

[Jelenafan]

My understanding is that the case reached the court in an unusual way. Normally this happens after matters of law are appealed. Not the case here. This matter wasn’t even contested. The woman created a hypothetical

Yes, I found that odd. She, the web designer, said she hadn’t actually been contacted by anyone to design a same sex wedding website but that she wanted to preempt the issue if it *did* arise.

 

[Moxie]

I actually did. I hyphenated a clause explaining

I thought it couldn't possibly be that facile and reactionary. My main point is that the case was decided on First Amendment grounds, so why would that have bearing or merit, in terms of transgender rights and "science" as you see it? Aside from its basic (and increasing) restriction of rights. It seems you were just editorializing.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, I found that odd. She, the web designer, said she hadn’t actually been contacted by anyone to design a same sex wedding website but that she wanted to preempt the issue if it *did* arise.

Interesting that SCOTUS is protecting hypothetical rights of some, based on religious grounds/beliefs, while failing to protect actual rights once granted, for actual issues and grievances, such as abortion rights and voting rights, that meaningfully impact peoples' lives, and can't be alleviated by going to another "vendor."

 

[Kieran]

Interesting that SCOTUS is protecting hypothetical rights of some, based on religious grounds/beliefs, while failing to protect actual rights once granted, for actual issues and grievances, such as abortion rights and voting rights, that meaningfully impact peoples' lives, and can't be alleviated by going to another "vendor."

Perhaps SCOTUS was right to discover that it wasn’t its place to place to make abortion legal everywhere in America?

Religious peoples rights is something you should be glad are being defended…

 

[Federberg]

I thought it couldn't possibly be that facile and reactionary. My main point is that the case was decided on First Amendment grounds, so why would that have bearing or merit, in terms of transgender rights and "science" as you see it? Aside from its basic (and increasing) restriction of rights. It seems you were just editorializing.

That's exactly the point I'm making, the door might just have been opened to using the First Amendment as protection for people who refuse to acknowledge this fake gender identification. Truth is the ultimate shield after all. I guess that possibility is too facile and reactionary for you? If you would just avoid the emotions, I appreciate it's difficult for you, you would seem like less of a putz

 

[Jelenafan]

Perhaps SCOTUS was right to discover that it wasn’t its place to place to make abortion legal everywhere in America?

Religious peoples rights is something you should be glad are being defended…

I think your missing the point, SCOTUS in the past reviewed specific cases , such as the original Roe vs Wade.

Regardless of where you fall on the abortion issue, a specific case frames it per certain parameters and details which the court then argues.

Speaking of religious rights , in the US there
several landmark cases in the 30’s and 40’s of Jehovahs witness children who refused to recite the pledge of allegiance on religious grounds, the Court ultimately reversed an earlier decision and said the majority could not impose their standards on a religious minority.

The issue is fascinating because per your point , the court did a 180 on an earlier court decision, so when a state regulation mandating saluting the flag & the pledge, some Justices changed course dramatically and even stated they regretted the prior court ruling. Again it was a specific case where the children & parents refused to comply with the State mandate. One of the points was their passive moral stance didnt harm others.

It established the principle that the First Amendment prevents the government from forcing private citizens to recite or convey an ideological messages they find morally objectionable. In law circles, it’s called “the compelled speech doctrine.”

So if someone requested from the web designer a wedding website for same sex couple, is that imposing on the Web designer a message they find morally objectionable? That could be argued per the First Amendment, but IMO you need the meat & flesh of an actual case to play it out. What if the couple told the webdesigner, that recognizing her stance, they would be responsible for all the worded content? What if the Designer feels as an individual she has the right to refuse any request, just as, say, she might find it morally objectionable to design a website for marrying Nazis who advocate ethnic genocide? Im babbling but my point is an actual case gets into some messy untidy weeds, which is not always a terrible thing.

So protecting religious rights is important, but how you get to that point also matters.