US Politics-2022
- Thread starter Lou
- Start date
OP
OP
Just got back from walking to the mailbox and mailing in my ballot. (California primary is tomorrow)
Only one box took me more than 2 minutes to decide. The State Assembly District I'm in was redrawn, and there was no incumbent. One of the Democrat candidate's PAC ran a negative campaign against one of the others. Must have gotten 10 things in the mail. They are the two front runners and both moderate democarats with local political resumes. normally I would have voted for one or the other. But I decided this might make an opening - so I voted for the progressive. He is a young local kid who went to Harvard and a self proclaimed social democrat. Normally he wouldn't have a chance. But with all this in-fighting ....
Regular elections have Initiatives. Those take forever to decode and decide on. Even then sometimes I can't figure them out. So this ballot was refreshingly easy.
Only one box took me more than 2 minutes to decide. The State Assembly District I'm in was redrawn, and there was no incumbent. One of the Democrat candidate's PAC ran a negative campaign against one of the others. Must have gotten 10 things in the mail. They are the two front runners and both moderate democarats with local political resumes. normally I would have voted for one or the other. But I decided this might make an opening - so I voted for the progressive. He is a young local kid who went to Harvard and a self proclaimed social democrat. Normally he wouldn't have a chance. But with all this in-fighting ....
Regular elections have Initiatives. Those take forever to decode and decide on. Even then sometimes I can't figure them out. So this ballot was refreshingly easy.
OP
OP
This just popped into my newsfeed.
Not sure if its another example of Tragicom. but it made me laugh.
CNN)Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert was trying to make the point that the scales of justice are tilted against Republicans these days. He did it in the worst possible way.
"If you're a Republican, you can't even lie to Congress or lie to an FBI agent or they're coming after you," Gohmert said in a Friday interview on NewsMax. "They're going to bury you, they're going to put you in the DC jail and terrorize and torture you and not live up to the Constitution there."
Just in case you forgot, lying to Congress or an FBI agent is against the law.
Not sure if its another example of Tragicom. but it made me laugh.
CNN)Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert was trying to make the point that the scales of justice are tilted against Republicans these days. He did it in the worst possible way.
"If you're a Republican, you can't even lie to Congress or lie to an FBI agent or they're coming after you," Gohmert said in a Friday interview on NewsMax. "They're going to bury you, they're going to put you in the DC jail and terrorize and torture you and not live up to the Constitution there."
Just in case you forgot, lying to Congress or an FBI agent is against the law.
Jamie in Chile
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2016
- Reaction score
- 1,855
- Age
- 44
- Lifestyle
- Vegetarian
It's good that they start the headline "Marjorie Green says" so that we can save ourselves some time by not reading the rest of the sentence. If they had put "said Marjorie Green" at the end I might have wasted a few seconds of my life paying attention to the rest of it.
Marjorie Taylor Greene Says Bill Gates Will Force You to Eat Burgers Made in a ‘Peach Tree Dish’
The Georgia rep just won her primary and has launched a new show on Facebook Live where she communicates her theories directly to the public.www.vice.com
OP
OP
Ha, ha! I just realized the M-T Greene must have one of those Conspiracy Theory Kit's for her refrigerator.
How else can you explain the stuff that comes out of her mouth.
worldofmirth.com
How else can you explain the stuff that comes out of her mouth.
Build Your Own Conspiracy Theory Kit
Have you ever wondered where conspiracy theories come from? Look no further than your fridge! Our new Build Your Own Conspiracy Theory Kit includes over 350 totally reliable words and phrases that you can piece together to prep for Fox News appearances or entertain your friends. Just scramble...
worldofmirth.com
Something that really annoys me is when people will respond to someone getting arrested for a drug crime by saying that it was their fault for breaking the law, it's victim blaming, it's the same as when sexist pigs say that a woman is at fault for getting raped because of how she was dressing or acting, a person has every right to use or sell drugs without having to worry about facing repercussions from the government, just like a woman has every right to dress or act the way she wants without having to worry about getting raped, it's not the fault of the victim, it's the fault of the rapist/cop, and they need to be held responsible.
OP
OP
That's actually a bad analogy.
The victim of a rape is just that: a victim.
Despite what others may say about how the was dressed or whatever, she didn't choose to be raped. If she did by definition that is not rape.
Someone getting busted for crime is not in the sense of the word a victim. I do understand your comparison, Since drug laws are unjust the person arrested for them is being treated unfairly.
However, there is still choice involved. Buying and using drugs is not a passive endeavor. You have to choose to use them. * In which case you have broken the law and are then responsible for the consequences.
Now don't get me wrong, I am no perfect citizen and have chosen to break laws myself. And if I ever got busted I would only blame myself - not the system. Sure the system is unfair. Even racist. But its there and we know it. And we can work together to change it.
So its just not right to equate a victim of rape to a someone busted for a drug offense. They may both look like victims to you but only one of them actively chose to put himself in jeopardy.
* I can think of some scenarios that might be exceptions. They mostly come down to limited options.
A woman might be more likely to get raped if she goes out alone at night, or if she wears revealing clothing, does that mean that she should be blamed if she gets raped? Of course not, it's the fault of the rapist, why is it fair that a person should have to regulate their own actions to prevent someone else from violating them?
OP
OP
I see your source of confusion.
It just so happens that its wise for women Not to go out alone at night. And if they do so to take precautions. (phones, mace, whistles,) but regardless I still would blame them and not the rapist.
It is also not prudent to do illegal things - you might get caught. but if you do get caught you have no one to blame but yourself.
you know, blaming the victim is on par with blaming society. I read a paper on that a long time ago. Maybe I can look it up
If you were to cross in front of a train, at night, and not at a crossing, and got hit by the train. Would you blame the train?
Of course it is, at the very least, in part the fault of the rapist, (the train analogy does not work, since the train does not intend to hit a person), even if you can successfully argue that it is partially the victim's fault, we must not pretend that the person who made the conscience choice to violate another person is not also to blame, and that they do not deserve to be held accountable.
First off, to say "
It just so happens that its wise for women Not to go out alone at night. And if they do so to take precautions. (phones, mace, whistles,) but regardless I still would blame them and not the rapist." is really sexist. There are shootings, robberies, beating all that happen to those of either sex--so I guess it's "prudent" that no one goes out at night?
Anyway, you both seem to be misunderstanding the others POV.
anarchist is not accepting of the laws in place, so seeing it that way would put the person selling/using drugs as the victim, and the police the thugs
Lou is not putting any blame on the woman, however even with the statement of "not prudent" makes it a bit questionable.
Lou's analogy of crossing in front of a train at night I believe is in response to getting arrested for something you knew was against the law and doing it anyway. Taking a chance.
I am against so many laws, and their intentional applications that I absolutely agree with anarchist in that many who "break" the laws are in fact victims
anarchist is not accepting of the laws in place, so seeing it that way would put the person selling/using drugs as the victim, and the police the thugs
Lou is not putting any blame on the woman, however even with the statement of "not prudent" makes it a bit questionable.
Lou's analogy of crossing in front of a train at night I believe is in response to getting arrested for something you knew was against the law and doing it anyway. Taking a chance.
I am against so many laws, and their intentional applications that I absolutely agree with anarchist in that many who "break" the laws are in fact victims
OP
OP
I didn't say I would blame the women and not the rapist.
oh wait I did say that but it was a typo. I meant to say. well now I don't know what I was going to say. so let me say it now
but regardless I would blame the rapist not the woman.
I still wouldn't call anyone busted when committing a crime a victim. However, I do know that our justice system here in the US is unfair. And plenty of innocent people are in the jail. or not totally innocent but still serving unjust sentences. and yeah those people ARE victims. (not to mention the poor guys who are stopped by police and then shot in the back)
Chryssie
Internet Junkie
OP
OP
Oh no. Well, can't say I'm surprised.Breaking news just now: Roe vs Wade is overturned.
As far as immediate practical consequences - they will be minimal. In states that are pro-life, it will continue to be very difficult to get an abortion. In states that are pro-choice, abortions will remain just as accessible. In fact, here in California we have been legislating to help more women from out of state get abortions.
I've always felt Roe and Casey have always been too fragile. There is no constitutional right to an abortion. Those decision were based on privacy. And you know there isn't even a constitutional right to privacy. Congress has had 50 years to get their act together and make some amendments. It's time, or even past time. And while they are at it maybe they can do something about the Second.
Also I really want to see the Democratic Party stay in power. (and even add some seats). Since they don't seem to have a great list of accomplishments from the last couple of years, maybe the best strategy is just to keep the Republicans from taking control. Americans care about gas prices and inflation. but they also care about women's rights and gun control. Every time the Republicans are to blame for something crazy like this - Democrats should get some more votes.
There may not be an express right to privacy in the Constitution, but several amendments encompass it (the 4th and 9th come to mind). I guess they had to base Roe on privacy because equality for women wasn't palatable politically back then.
This is going to open a sh*t storm of challenges to all sorts of rights that were guaranteed based on Roe. I know the decision says this doesn't apply to other rights, but that's a ridiculous statement, since the court has time and again based decisions on previous rulings because the overriding principles were applicable to subsequent decisions. I also love how hypocritical the conservatives on the court are. They're OK with preventing states from making laws to regulate the 2nd Amendment, but they're all like the states can decide on abortion and reproductive rights. This court is quickly losing credibility. I don't think the "legal minds" (and I use that term loosely) of ACB and Kavanaugh are up to the task. Even Alito. They can't get past their religious ideology and look at the issue objectively, IMHO.
I'm so tired of religion infecting public policy. They are basically elevating Christianity over other religions and over those who don't believe in a god or religion. Religion should have nothing to do with creating policy and law. I'm sorry if this is an unpopular opinion, but I don't want my tax dollars funding religious institutions. And they don't deserve the tax breaks they've gotten for eons.
I was pretty shocked when I read about that!Breaking news just now: Roe vs Wade is overturned.
OP
OP
Similar threads
