Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[DShomshak]

36 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Boebert is very vocally opposed to abortions. And has been pushing the Republicans' "traditional Christian family values" line. But hypocrisy has become par for the course in today's GOP.

 

It's not hypocritical when you accept that the fundamental premise of conservatism is different rules for different people.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Lord Liaden]

The fundamental premise of conservatism, whether political, fiscal, or social, is the maintenance of the status quo. That the status quo often practically results in different rules for different people is not inherently part of its philosophy. I've known fiscal conservatives who are socially liberal, although I've sometimes had to point out to them that those two elements can't realistically be separated.

 

What we're seeing in America today under the label of "conservatism," is an alliance of various reactionary elements which don't actually try to conserve the status quo, but to change it in ways which match their fantasy "golden age" of America, but which would actually fundamentally alter some of its key characteristics.

[Cygnia]

White Parents Rallied to Chase a Black Educator Out of Town. Then, They Followed Her to the Next One.

[TrickstaPriest]

 

[Dr. MID-Nite]

The answer to gas prices is simple: the capitalist fallacy of unlimited growth. They won't accept one ounce of lost profit.

[csyphrett]

On 6/16/2022 at 10:00 AM, Cygnia said:

White Parents Rallied to Chase a Black Educator Out of Town. Then, They Followed Her to the Next One.

Rich white racists and GOP are like ham and cheese, peanut butter and jelly.

CES   

[Old Man]

19 hours ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

The answer to gas prices is simple: the capitalist fallacy of unlimited growth. They won't accept one ounce of lost profit.

 

I assumed this last spike was a last* money grab before renewables end the fossil fuel party forever.

 

 

* "Last"

[unclevlad]

Renewables have a long, long way to go before they can effectively bring this about.  Right now, from

 

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=92&t=4#:~:text=How much of U.S. energy,about 20.1% of electricity generation.

 

12% of total, 20% of electrical is larger than I would've thought, but it's nowhere near enough to avoid issues.  

 

EIA also says US gasoline consumption is close to 9 million barrels......per day.  Electric cars have *serious* limitations that make them ill-suited for a substantial fraction of people.  As a side thought...what about electric semis?  

 

https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a36506185/electric-big-rig-semi-trucks/

 

HIGHLY recommend reading that story.

[Lord Liaden]

Renewable energy development in the US lags well behind other countries. For example, Denmark now produces 67% of its electricity consumption from renewables. China's renewable electricity output reached 44.8% of consumption last year. In terms of total energy use, Norway leads the world at 56% renewable. The technology is there, but the US has lacked the political will to make it more economically desirable to implement.

[Ragitsu]

It's difficult to summon the will when you're getting distracted from under the table.

[assault]

One of the early results of the new government in Australia is an energy crisis. A bunch of poorly maintained coal power stations were out of action when demand for electricity peaked.

 

Naturally every coal fondler is blaming the use of renewables for that. The more Fox News types are using this to justify nuclear power in the country of sun and wind.

[DShomshak]

On 6/15/2022 at 7:25 PM, Lord Liaden said:

The fundamental premise of conservatism, whether political, fiscal, or social, is the maintenance of the status quo. That the status quo often practically results in different rules for different people is not inherently part of its philosophy. I've known fiscal conservatives who are socially liberal, although I've sometimes had to point out to them that those two elements can't realistically be separated.

 

What we're seeing in America today under the label of "conservatism," is an alliance of various reactionary elements which don't actually try to conserve the status quo, but to change it in ways which match their fantasy "golden age" of America, but which would actually fundamentally alter some of its key characteristics.

Off hand, I can't think of a single instance of conservatism where maintaining the status quo *didn't* involve different rules for different people... though the intent might be disguised Fiscal conservatism is a prime example. Fiscal conservatives present themselves as merely concerned with governments digging themselves into financial holes they can't get out of. But what expenditures must be avoided or cut for this prudence? Why, the welfare state. I don't remember ever hearing a self-described fiscal conservative ever saying, "We shall simply have to slash our military budget and hope for the best." Much less, "Corporations will simply have to pay more for the benefits they gain from government," or "We can still afford pensions and health care if we raise taxes on rich people." No, the pain of austerity must be borne by the less affluent. So in practice, different rules for rich and poor.

 

The current Republican obsession with "election security" similarly tries to present itself as a hard-headed, prudent concern for accuracy and reliability (against those wild-eyed liberals who'd hand a ballot to anyone willy-nilly), but is rather unsubtly code for "Keep Black people from voting."

 

I will grant that some conservatives have become fairly slick at presenting liberal innovations as creating new privileged groups or new oppressions -- opponents of affirmative action were quite brilliant at selling this -- but it's usually not hard to spot the defense of an old unfairness hiding behind the accusation of a new unfairness. So I think my formulation stands.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Old Man]

4 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Renewable energy development in the US lags well behind other countries. For example, Denmark now produces 67% of its electricity consumption from renewables. China's renewable electricity output reached 44.8% of consumption last year. In terms of total energy use, Norway leads the world at 56% renewable. The technology is there, but the US has lacked the political will to make it more economically desirable to implement.

 

1 hour ago, assault said:

One of the early results of the new government in Australia is an energy crisis. A bunch of poorly maintained coal power stations were out of action when demand for electricity peaked.

 

Naturally every coal fondler is blaming the use of renewables for that. The more Fox News types are using this to justify nuclear power in the country of sun and wind.

 

Economics will destroy the market for fossil fuels in short order.  The cost of renewable energy is already significantly less than any fossil or nuclear source (despite government subsidies for fossils), and doesn't come with the same regulatory, capital, or environmental hurdles.  Of course it can't happen soon enough for purposes of climate change...

 

 

 

 

 

[Old Man]

Uvalde police may not have even tried to open the classroom doors behind which wounded children and teachers were bleeding out

 

Uvalde police lawyer up to block release of public records regarding details of the shooting

 

GOP senators who signed on to a bipartisan gun control bill after the Uvalde shooting are finding ways to yank the football away back out of the agreement less than a week later

 

It's been less than a month since 17 little kids and two teachers were gunned down in an elementary school.

 

 

[unclevlad]

The first point makes me glad I'm not prone to ulcers.

 

The second point is nauseating but expected....both that they'd use it, and that Texas would have it in the first place.  I wonder if the Justice Department has jurisdiction to step in;  I suspect, probably not.

 

The third point isn't even nauseating, because anything *else* would be the shock.

[dmjalund]

how many times does it take for the Democrats to realize that the GOP is a pathological Lucy Van Pelt

[Ranxerox]

On 6/17/2022 at 11:56 PM, Ragitsu said:

It's difficult to summon the will when you're getting distracted from under the table.

 

I understand the cynicism, and it is probably more than a little bit warranted.  However, the US is a major producer of fossil fuels and they provide many jobs and are the bulwark of many regional economies.  So, many congress peoples have large constituencies whose livelihoods are tied to fossil fuels.

 

8 hours ago, dmjalund said:

how many times does it take for the Democrats to realize that the GOP is a pathological Lucy Van Pelt

 

They know.  However, if the the Republicans offer to work with them and the Dems say no to engaging in the process, it is the Dems that look like the jerks.

[Dr. MID-Nite]

15 hours ago, Old Man said:

Uvalde police may not have even tried to open the classroom doors behind which wounded children and teachers were bleeding out

 

Uvalde police lawyer up to block release of public records regarding details of the shooting

 

GOP senators who signed on to a bipartisan gun control bill after the Uvalde shooting are finding ways to yank the football away back out of the agreement less than a week later

 

It's been less than a month since 17 little kids and two teachers were gunned down in an elementary school.

 

 

 

 About the right time frame for ignoring that it ever happened....until the next one.

[Ragitsu]

1 hour ago, Ranxerox said:

 

I understand the cynicism, and it is probably more than a little bit warranted.  However, the US is a major producer of fossil fuels and they provide many jobs and are the bulwark of many regional economies.  So, many congress peoples have large constituencies whose livelihoods are tied to fossil fuels.

 

How many people have their livelihoods tied to the planet? Politicians need to stop mollycoddling their constituents and give them a harsh dose of reality; they also need to stop forestalling the various efforts to transition over to electricity.

[Ranxerox]

9 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

How many people have their livelihoods tied to the planet? Politicians need to stop mollycoddling their constituents and give them a harsh dose of reality; they also need to stop forestalling the various efforts to transition over to electricity.

 

Exactly which politicians are you talking about?  Ones that never got elected?  Because I assure you in Big Coal country/Big Oil Country/Big Natural Gas country giving even a hint that you do not stand behind the local industry is a quick road to to an inglorious defeat.  I say this as someone who was born and raised in Big Oil country.  So unless the politician ran as a sleeper agent pretending love fossil fuels but secretly wishing to save the planet and there were enough of these sleeper agents to make a difference, then nothing is going to happen.  And even in my conspiracy theory for good, the change doesn't last.  All of the sleeper agent candidates get voted out to office the very next election, and as soon as president who is willing to sign them into law is in  office, a raft of legislation designed to to viciously gut environmental protections would be made into law.

 

So, no, it is not the job of politicians to stop mollycoddling their constituents.  It is the job of constituents to stop mollycoddling their elected officials.  Unfortunately, first the constituents must decide for themselves that the wellbeing of the planet is worth the risk of financial hardship.  See Cygnia's article on white parents rallying against a black educator in their own county and continuing to hound her even after she moved away, if you want to see what sort of people constituents are. 

[Ragitsu]

2 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

So, no, it is not the job of politicians to stop mollycoddling their constituents.  It is the job of constituents to stop mollycoddling their elected officials.  Unfortunately, first the constituents must decide for themselves that the wellbeing of the planet is worth the risk of financial hardship.  See Cygnia's article on white parents rallying against a black educator in their own county and continuing to hound her even after she moved away, if you want to see what sort of people constituents are. 

 

Chicken and the egg, Ranx; voters need to be educated (and/or at least reasonably intelligent)/vigilant/motivated, but their elected leaders should be even MORE forward-thinking than the average Joe and Jane.

[csyphrett]

4 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

Chicken and the egg, Ranx; voters need to be educated (and/or at least reasonably intelligent)/vigilant/motivated, but their elected leaders should be even MORE forward-thinking than the average Joe and Jane.

Never happen. Thats like saying since Red States have more murders they need more gun control. You might as well as ask for flying elephants and singing mice.

CES   

[Cygnia]

8 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

Chicken and the egg, Ranx; voters need to be educated (and/or at least reasonably intelligent)/vigilant/motivated, but their elected leaders should be even MORE forward-thinking than the average Joe and Jane.

Need to, yes.  But the terrifying problem is that there are a LOT of people who willingly REFUSE to.  And the Backlash Effect is all too real.

[Ternaugh]

4 hours ago, csyphrett said:

Never happen. Thats like saying since Red States have more murders they need more gun control. You might as well as ask for flying elephants and singing mice.

CES   

 

Singing mice: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-singing-mice-central-america-180971600/

 

I'm still looking for flying elephants that aren't on their way to Cancun.

[Lord Liaden]

6 hours ago, csyphrett said:

Never happen. Thats like saying since Red States have more murders they need more gun control. You might as well as ask for flying elephants and singing mice.

CES   

 

"Never" is unsustainably long. In my lifetime, we were never going to eliminate smoking in public places. We were never going to cut down drinking and driving, or get people to wear seatbelts. We were never going to make industry stop polluting. We were never going to end school segregation. Those things changed -- not disappeared, but became far less common, and broadly disapproved of -- because the majority of people came around to accepting that they were the right things to do. And that didn't happen because of legislation, the legislation happened because people wanted it.

 

Poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans favor stronger gun control, more affordable health care and higher education, more aggressive measures to combat global warming and develop alternative energy, more social inclusivity. Absolutely, there are areas where resistance to those things dominates, and there are influential groups with a vested interest in avoiding those changes. But even in industry we're seeing a change in attitudes and practices, because they recognize that's what their customers want, and that's how they'll make money.

 

There are more progressives than regressives in America now. Eventually the regressives will lose. They're fighting so hard to subvert the system and cling to power precisely because they recognize they're losing. Granted, they have the potential to cause enormous harm in the interim, but they're fighting the rising tide. Over a long enough time line, progress wins.