American Politics

[catagon87]

Nah, they had plenty of chances to codify Roe v Wade for decades. And the fact that there would be a few Democrats that wouldn't support codifying Roe v Wade would also show that Democrats like to talk but not take action.

I'll address both points here as you seem to have a misunderstanding of how the Senate works, and Democrats' views on abortion. The simplicity of "they had plenty of chances to codify Roe v Wade for decades" implies two assumptions to me: That you think parties always vote in lock step, and that filibusters don't exist. This is assuming a bill has cleared the House of Representatives. So to codify Roe v Wade, you need a majority of Representatives to vote Yea on the bill. It then goes to the Senate where you will need 60 votes to override the incoming Filibuster. Democrats have never been entirely pro-choice in their history, so even with a Senate super majority you can assume you'd still have some "Nays" who would allow a Filibuster which would ultimately kill the bill.

Consider the Affordable Care Act. Democrats had 255 seats during the vote, and the motion BARELY passed due to the possibility of the bill funding abortions with public funds. Do you really think they could have just codified abortion when they barely passed the Affordable Care Act with a super majority in the House and Senate? This isn't Democrats who "like to talk but not take action" as you put it. This is Democrats who are openly pro-life, as is their voter base. Is it right? Probably not. Is it fair? Definitely not. It's just how it is. All that said, the implication that the stars have lined up perfectly for codification multiple times is false.

As per my last message, Biden can actually show he cares and is fighting to carry out his promises. He's not doing himself any favors tweeting stuff like "I'm against Islamophobia" when he's playing a huge part in fueling that.

This is pretty vague. As far as US Presidents go he's the only one who's ever actually done anything to combat Islamophobia, so I'm not sure what you're even talking about.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 25, 2024, Original Post Date: Apr 25, 2024 ---

Biden just signed into law banning TikTok if it doesn't sell to an American company. Why are Biden and Dems so hellbent on ruining Dems' chances to win 2024? Like, I know he's in Israel's pocket, and the politicians are scared of how powerful TikTok is in informing people, but this is ridiculous. If Trump promises to fight for TikTok, then he's definitely way more likely to win.

I feel like you think you're the only voter that exists in this country.

Voters in the USA care about their kids, and their privacy, and the average person here is strongly anti-China (PRC, not necessarily Chinese people). This was a Bipartisan bill that easily cleared both the House and Senate with support from both parties. The amount of data that TikTok records from its users is fucking scary, and I say that as someone in InfoSec. I refuse to put that garbage on my phone (any social media, but especially TikTok). Companies in China can't opt out of providing data to the Communist Party of China, so there is a very real concern about the amount of information the Chinese Government will have on US Citizens. Whether you like it or not, it's not in our national interest to have the largest form of Social Media in the pocket of the PRC. They can use it to influence elections, and even to spy on their own ex-pats.

The only demographic that cares that TikTok could potentially be banned is the demographic that routinely doesn't show up to vote.

 

[ninjabot]

The only demographic that cares that TikTok could potentially be banned is the demographic that routinely doesn't show up to vote.

Who also happen to be the same demographic most enthused about ruining Biden's campaign in the name of Palestine.

Because Trump is gonna be more amenable to their requests I guess?

 

[kkck]

I'll address both points here as you seem to have a misunderstanding of how the Senate works, and Democrats' views on abortion. The simplicity of "they had plenty of chances to codify Roe v Wade for decades" implies two assumptions to me: That you think parties always vote in lock step, and that filibusters don't exist. This is assuming a bill has cleared the House of Representatives. So to codify Roe v Wade, you need a majority of Representatives to vote Yea on the bill. It then goes to the Senate where you will need 60 votes to override the incoming Filibuster. Democrats have never been entirely pro-choice in their history, so even with a Senate super majority you can assume you'd still have some "Nays" who would allow a Filibuster which would ultimately kill the bill.

Consider the Affordable Care Act. Democrats had 255 seats during the vote, and the motion BARELY passed due to the possibility of the bill funding abortions with public funds. Do you really think they could have just codified abortion when they barely passed the Affordable Care Act with a super majority in the House and Senate? This isn't Democrats who "like to talk but not take action" as you put it. This is Democrats who are openly pro-life, as is their voter base. Is it right? Probably not. Is it fair? Definitely not. It's just how it is. All that said, the implication that the stars have lined up perfectly for codification multiple times is false.



This is pretty vague. As far as US Presidents go he's the only one who's ever actually done anything to combat Islamophobia, so I'm not sure what you're even talking about.

Isn't this more of a failure of politics? At least since I've been aware of US politics I don't recall any attempt by democrats to pass this. And you are right, this probably wouldn't have passed. And even now it probably wouldn't. But if you try to pass a bill even if it fails you can at least point fingers at those who voted against it. Congress as far as I can tell generally tries to protect its members from their actual positions.

 

[catagon87]

Who also happen to be the same demographic most enthused about ruining Biden's campaign in the name of Palestine.

Because Trump is gonna be more amenable to their requests I guess?

The TikTok ban/forced sell is one thing I'm not going to be against. Ignoring all of my personal biases against the actual content of TikTok, it's a no-brainer that it's not in our interests to have a Chinese-owned company collecting data from US Citizens.

• The CCP has an increasing influence over corporations in China.
  • In China the CCP has a joint ownership of any business operating within their borders.
• ByteDance's servers are in China. The USA has no control over or insight over the data in its current form. I bring this up because while yes, Facebook and others sell data, there are protections in effect on how the data is collected, what data is stored, etc..
• China has literally banned US social media themselves

This is all outside of the other arguments against social media (being a waste of time, increased depression, etc).

This case is going to hit the courts, for sure, though. It's not over.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 25, 2024, Original Post Date: Apr 25, 2024 ---

Isn't this more of a failure of politics?

Whether it's a failure or success of politics is in the eye of the beholder. It's just how our particular flavor of politics works in the USA. It was by design that it's difficult to pass legislation, and incredibly difficult to amend the constitution. If you look at it from the way things were actually designed it's a feature and not a bug. If you look at it from the perspective of someone whose bill got Filibustered out of a vote then of course it's a failure. If the Republicans tried to codify an abortion ban and it was filibustered, I personally wouldn't see that as a success, but many would.

At least since I've been aware of US politics I don't recall any attempt by democrats to pass this. And you are right, this probably wouldn't have passed. And even now it probably wouldn't. But if you try to pass a bill even if it fails you can at least point fingers at those who voted against it. Congress as far as I can tell generally tries to protect its members from their actual positions.

They usually want to be sure a bill is going to pass before they bring it to a vote. Before they ever bring it to a vote there are hundreds of negotiations happening to figure out whether the bill will pass or not. If they brought this to a vote and it failed it would be forever on the record as a failure and that would certainly be brought up in subsequent attempts to do the same thing. My guess is that it's been brought up before, and never had the votes to be worth bringing to a vote.

 

[kkck]

The TikTok ban/forced sell is one thing I'm not going to be against. Ignoring all of my personal biases against the actual content of TikTok, it's a no-brainer that it's not in our interests to have a Chinese-owned company collecting data from US Citizens.

• The CCP has an increasing influence over corporations in China.
  • In China the CCP has a joint ownership of any business operating within their borders.
• ByteDance's servers are in China. The USA has no control over or insight over the data in its current form. I bring this up because while yes, Facebook and others sell data, there are protections in effect on how the data is collected, what data is stored, etc..
• China has literally banned US social media themselves

This is all outside of the other arguments against social media (being a waste of time, increased depression, etc).

This case is going to hit the courts, for sure, though. It's not over.

This.... so many times over. I've said it before but to me it's scary that even with those glaringly obvious truths there's so many folk out there who are against the ban. I am by no means a nationalist of any type (or even from the US) but how much do you have to hate yourself and your country to be cool with a foreign kinda hostile nation, which blatantly does not have anything resembling democratic principles, spying on you?

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 25, 2024, Original Post Date: Apr 25, 2024 ---

Whether it's a failure or success of politics is in the eye of the beholder. It's just how our particular flavor of politics works in the USA. It was by design that it's difficult to pass legislation, and incredibly difficult to amend the constitution. If you look at it from the way things were actually designed it's a feature and not a bug. If you look at it from the perspective of someone whose bill got Filibustered out of a vote then of course it's a failure. If the Republicans tried to codify an abortion ban and it was filibustered, I personally wouldn't see that as a success, but many would.

They usually want to be sure a bill is going to pass before they bring it to a vote. Before they ever bring it to a vote there are hundreds of negotiations happening to figure out whether the bill will pass or not. If they brought this to a vote and it failed it would be forever on the record as a failure and that would certainly be brought up in subsequent attempts to do the same thing. My guess is that it's been brought up before, and never had the votes to be worth bringing to a vote.

The filibuster as far as I can tell is outright abuse though. At least on my end I call BS on the arguments to keep the filibuster around... The filibuster should be indefensible in a democratic system.

Hmmm, I can see that as being the side of legislators. And sure, a bill being turned down will mean it won't be revisited for some time. But it'd make zero sense to use a vote on a bill which didn't pass before to never run it again. You can try passing bills again, even if not immediately. But votes are what lets you point fingers at legislators. Legislators definitely don't have to be afraid of the things they don't vote for but they should be very afraid that what they do vote on costs them reelection or their careers.

 

[catagon87]

Hmmm, I can see that as being the side of legislators. And sure, a bill being turned down will mean it won't be revisited for some time. But it'd make zero sense to use a vote on a bill which didn't pass before to never run it again. You can try passing bills again, even if not immediately. But votes are what lets you point fingers at legislators. Legislators definitely don't have to be afraid of the things they don't vote for but they should be very afraid that what they do vote on costs them reelection or their careers.

Yeah there's no such thing as double jeopardy, I honestly think it's just one of those things that would have never passed though. Not to mention there's only been a couple of periods of time that there was a Democrat in Office with a Democrat majority in both the House and Senate.

 

[kkck]

Yeah there's no such thing as double jeopardy, I honestly think it's just one of those things that would have never passed though. Not to mention there's only been a couple of periods of time that there was a Democrat in Office with a Democrat majority in both the House and Senate.

It's obviously speculative but it's also an issue of how politics would be different if legislators had to take responsibility for the stuff they vote for instead of being able to simply avoid it by not voting at all. And this naturally goes beyond any one issue (and obviously requires citizens to give a crap about policy). At least to me the system looks like it shields legislators from responsibility even though it should reasonably actively work to push responsibility onto folk.

 

[catagon87]

This.... so many times over. I've said it before but to me it's scary that even with those glaringly obvious truths there's so many folk out there who are against the ban. I am by no means a nationalist of any type (or even from the US) but how much do you have to hate yourself and your country to be cool with a foreign kinda hostile nation, which blatantly does not have anything resembling democratic principles, spying on you?

The hilarious part is that China fanned this flame themselves by having their fucking EMBASSY lobby against the ban. It raised a ton of red flags across the board.

China: "You must not ban TikTok! There will be consequences!"
USA: "You mean like you might ban Google, Facebook, Tw... err. Nevermind."

 

[kkck]

The hilarious part is that China fanned this flame themselves by having their fucking EMBASSY lobby against the ban. It raised a ton of red flags across the board.

China: "You must not ban TikTok! There will be consequences!"
USA: "You mean like you might ban Google, Facebook, Tw... err. Nevermind."

hmmm, I'd say an embassy's job would be in that alley for this sort of thing. But it comes down to how much of an indisputable no-brainer this is. Tik tok not getting insta-banned years ago is a massive failure of governance and foreign policy... it's difficult to overstate how absurd this is. I mean, tik tok being used to spy on folk is something that has been known for years. It's been around since god damn 2016. By this point you'd think the government would at least be on witch hunt mode looking people whom might have been influenced by the chinese government to prevent it from being banned. And even then tik tok was given a year to divest. One more year of spying....

 

[catagon87]

hmmm, I'd say an embassy's job would be in that alley for this sort of thing. But it comes down to how much of an indisputable no-brainer this is. Tik tok not getting insta-banned years ago is a massive failure of governance and foreign policy... it's difficult to overstate how absurd this is. I mean, tik tok being used to spy on folk is something that has been known for years. It's been around since god damn 2016. By this point you'd think the government would at least be on witch hunt mode looking people whom might have been influenced by the chinese government to prevent it from being banned. And even then tik tok was given a year to divest. One more year of spying....

Usually the company would be the ones paying a registered lobbying firm. TikTok spent billions on lobbying over the past 5 or so years. They got cocky thinking they were untouchable, and lost big. Now their only hope is in the court systems which, who knows?

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 25, 2024, Original Post Date: Apr 25, 2024 ---

This article outlines the history of their fight in extreme detail.

The part that struck me as the most validating piece of the TikTok ban is:

Another article that details the final nail in the coffin which was the Embassy getting involved.

 

[kkck]

Usually the company would be the ones paying a registered lobbying firm. TikTok spent billions on lobbying over the past 5 or so years. They got cocky thinking they were untouchable, and lost big. Now their only hope is in the court systems which, who knows?

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 25, 2024, Original Post Date: Apr 25, 2024 ---

This article outlines the history of their fight in extreme detail.

The part that struck me as the most validating piece of the TikTok ban is:

Another article that details the final nail in the coffin which was the Embassy getting involved.

hmm, sure, but it's not that unusual for an embassy or consulate to act on behalf of it's people or business interests. The issue here is of course context and the obvious bad faith at play. Which make fairly normal stuff look straight up nefarious. Let alone the fact that china doesn't allow foreign social media should be enough for the US to do the same in regards to chinese social media.

 

[catagon87]

hmm, sure, but it's not that unusual for an embassy or consulate to act on behalf of it's people or business interests. The issue here is of course context and the obvious bad faith at play. Which make fairly normal stuff look straight up nefarious. Let alone the fact that china doesn't allow foreign social media should be enough for the US to do the same in regards to chinese social media.

It's about how it precipitated. If you read the article about the Embassy's lobbying for TikTok they were trying to be overly reassuring that the Party has no connections to the company, which is just completely false.

 

[kkck]

It's about how it precipitated. If you read the article about the Embassy's lobbying for TikTok they were trying to be overly reassuring that the Party has no connections to the company, which is just completely false.

hhhhmmmm, yeah, you are right. It's one thing to act on behalf of your country and it's another that said country's embassy shows up and says such an obvious and brazen lie. I can't help but picture the chinese going "huh, so they aren't dumb enough to buy this".

 

[ninjabot]

This.... so many times over. I've said it before but to me it's scary that even with those glaringly obvious truths there's so many folk out there who are against the ban. I am by no means a nationalist of any type (or even from the US) but how much do you have to hate yourself and your country to be cool with a foreign kinda hostile nation, which blatantly does not have anything resembling democratic principles, spying on you?

I should really chill out with my hating on leftists (because that's not how you change people's minds, and I am a Socdem so I'm closer to them than I'd like to admit), but this does really seem to be their motto. "America Bad."

I'm no patriot, or a nationalist. I don't care about the nation itself. I care about the people of the nation. But that's not the same thing as hating it. Conservatives have stolen patriotism from Democrats the same way they stole Christianity.

 

[M3J]

Interesting how it's almost always Zionists that get violent or call for violence, while the only thing Zionists can say about the protesters is, "but Palestine supporters advocate for violence!! " Also disappointing to see how free speech and First Amendment people are so quiet when students are getting beaten up, arrested, expelled, and kicked out for protesting, and even worse that colleges are the ones making these things happen

 

[ninjabot]

And this isn't an attempt at finding a one-off crazy protester to make all protesters look bad.

This is me bringing attention to the fact that this is one of the leaders of the encampment at Columbia responsible for the protests.

Palestine is not sending their best.

 

[M3J]

Gee, it can't be because Zionists are actively supporting and committing genocide AND abusing and raping Palestinians regardless of how young or old they are! Zionists are no different from Nazis, except they hide behind anti-Semitism instead of being openly anti-Semitic even as they attack pro-Palestine Jews.

 

[ninjabot]

The official Houthi flags you see behind say:

God is great, Death to America, Death to Israel, A curse upon the Jews, and Victory to Islam

This is the source video:

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 27, 2024, Original Post Date: Apr 27, 2024 ---

Columbia Bars Student Protester Who Said ‘Zionists Don’t Deserve to Live’

After video surfaced on social media, the student, Khymani James, said on Friday that his comments were wrong.

www.nytimes.com

Also, Columbia barred Kymani James from Columbia after his unhinged "Zionists shouldn't be allowed to live" bullshit. Kymani has since retracted their words.

See? All it takes is real life consequences for these people to realize how the world really works. You can't advocate for murder and be viewed as the good guy. "No bad tactics, only bad people" is a fallacy that doesn't work.

 

[kkck]

Huh, looks like the level of discourse seen on internet debates about israel has spilled into real life.

 

[M3J]

Most of the pro-Israel or anti-Palestine discourse have often been proven to be fake or lies, and Visegrad is actually one of the biggest peddlers of bullshit with how often they lie. It's sad because a little research can show just how evil Zionists are, and how they're the new Nazis, which they're loud about.

I mean, it says a lot when there are Israelis who support Palestine and Jews in America who are protesting for Palestine (and ironically both are being attacked and arrested by Zionists or people who claim to be against anti-Semitism).