Cory1848

The global defense industry, especially US companies, indeed profit handsomely from conflict, but that’s only one side of it. Unfortunately, some fights are necessary regardless of whether someone profits from it, such as defending a country (Ukraine) that faces an unprovoked invasion from a larger neighbor. There are forces at play that extend well beyond the profit motive. Your monolithic view of a “deep state” is ill-informed and more than a little naïve.

Either Newsom or Whitmer would be strong alternatives; I don’t know enough about the others who have been mentioned to say. But I’m more positive than you about Harris; I think she is more than capable (not sure why she’s gotten such a bad rap), and if she’s passed over I don’t think she would blow up the party. However, if indeed she’s passed over, it seems likely there would be strong backlash from African American voters, given the perception that the “heir apparent” who happens to be a Black-identifying woman would thus be passed over for someone who’s white. Race politics, unfortunately, is alive and well, and it’s a factor to some extent on both sides. I think Harris could beat Trump -- she’s a prosecutor by trade and would make his head explode in a debate. Someone else mentioned Michelle Obama; I don’t think she’s interested. And while I’d love for a true progressive (like AOC) to head the ticket, the reality is, at least in 2024, a majority of Americans won’t vote for that. Maybe in ten years.

Trump is a threat to democracy because his proposed actions would effectively eliminate the separation of powers, bring several independent agencies under his direct control, enable him to fire judges willy-nilly, and other such actions. (The extent to which “democracy” even exists in the US regardless of which party is in power, given the role of corporate money in politics, is debatable, but that’s another topic.) I think that, at least over the next couple of months, there are likely sufficient controls around Biden (as there were around Trump during his administration, as people simply refused to do what he wanted because his demands were illegal, or stupid, or just wrong). Plus, I don’t think that Biden is that far gone at the moment. Still, I think that Harris, whom I do like, needs to stay out there and continue to demonstrate that she’s capable, whether as a surrogate president or a president in her own right. Bringing in a third candidate to head the ticket at this point risks throwing the party into total chaos, with little time to recover.

On Biden’s staff protecting him, I don’t disagree. I was responding to the original poster’s sobbing that this was somehow a threat to democracy. On your proposal about a panel of independent psychologists, perhaps they should assess both candidates with equal rigor. I also believe that a president should be able to pass a basic civics test and not be a convicted criminal. The challenger would fail on both those counts. Biden’s candidacy at this point is problematic, I agree, and I wish that the Democrats had drawn up a Plan B a couple of years ago. But, if he’s not replaced and wins the election, there is indeed a protocol for a situation in which a president becomes disabled while in office. While far from ideal, this is still far better than going with the candidate who promises to install an authoritarian regime.

What on earth are you talking about. Every politician, from the president on down to the lowest county official, has a “team,” or perhaps “staff,” of aides whom that politician hires to help them do their job. If you think that this simple and necessary administrative arrangement is somehow a “threat to democracy,” you’re pretty far down the wrong rabbit hole. If you’re looking for actual threats to democracy, you should read the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which aggregates an unprecedented amount of raw power behind the person of the president. If this agenda were adopted by a Republican or other reactionary president, and together with yesterday’s court ruling on presidential immunity, these new tools would quickly enable the establishment of an authoritarian state. If this is what you intend to vote for, may I suggest that you first go spend some time in Russia, or Afghanistan, or unliberated Burma, to see how it suits you.

And how does teaching these things exceed a teacher’s mandate? Progressivism has long historical roots and advocates social justice; what have you got against that? There is indeed a strong argument that racism is institutionally embedded, as CRT claims, and why shouldn’t the pros and cons of such arguments be taught to high school students? And socialism is indeed viable, as demonstrated by socialist-leaning systems found in many European countries. I’m also, by the way, in favor of teaching the Bible, in its historical context, alongside other religions. Knowledge is good!

Exactly. If I were a teacher in Oklahoma tasked with teaching the Bible, I would gladly do so, placing that text in its proper context while introducing texts from other religions. A study of comparative religions can be very valuable. If that’s not quite what the troglodytes in the Oklahoma legislature had in mind, screw ’em.

What on earth are you talking about. Sure, there’s plenty of hatred in the world, in most corners. Stop being part of the problem.

Thank you. The large number of irrational posts here reminds me of a meme, on antivaxxers but with a similar psychology going on. The first picture is labeled “vaccine research” and shows a group of people in lab coats in a lab, doing their work. The second picture is labeled “antivax research” and shows a woman sitting on a toilet staring into her cellphone. I am not a scientist or engineer, but I value and respect the work of people such as yourself, as well as of the world’s climatologists, who are in overwhelming consensus about the nature and causes of climate change.

And hopefully the Maldives will then also ban citizens of Russia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Burma, Palestine, the United States, the DRC, Syria ... am I missing anyone?

My cat caught cryptococcosis from habitually walking in pigeon droppings and licking her paws. It ate away half her face, and I had to have her put down. I learned that the fungus is not directly transferable from one animal to another, you need to get the spores from the source to get sick, but the vets were very careful in handling my cat. I wish the best to this woman who caught it; it's nasty stuff.

Trump’s well-publicized plans for what he wants to do to the country in a second term are steeped in fascism. Trump displayed fascist tendencies from the very beginning of his first term, when he demanded personal loyalty from then-FBI director James Comey during a private dinner (civil servants, of course, pledge loyalty to the constitution). Your own idea to require all citizens to wear an armband is another fascist construct, with historical antecedents (swastika much?) -- so those not wearing an armband can be quickly rooted out and done whatever with. You have every right to be a Trump fanboy and cast your vote for him, but please don’t pretend that this has anything to do with America, whose standards and ideals you have no clue about.

I wish them luck. It’s a beautiful country, and Russians are wonderful people. But I believe that many will become disillusioned with life in a dictatorship, with their freedom of speech curtailed. And to think there’s anything genuinely “spiritual” about Putin and his corrupt oligarchy of billionaires is lunacy.

Trump’s agenda all along has been to rake in buckets of money by catering to the desires of the billionaire and corporate class, while diverting the lower classes with lies about immigration, election fraud, and other lurid topics. Anyone who doesn’t see this should qualify for a tax break, as they are legally blind.

Because 2,000 years of recurring pogroms in Europe and elsewhere have demonstrated that Jewish people can only be secure if they take responsibility for their own security, which they can only do by controlling their own state.

Exactly. I had in mind some form of social democracy, with a mixed economy; it’s not Marxism, but it’s not unfettered capitalism either. I expect that a social democracy would include abortion rights as part of a program of social equality and universal access to health and other services. Scandinavian countries generally follow such a system, and they always rank at the top in “happiness” indexes. But for a lot of people, it’s easier to simply throw around words that sound scary.

In the first part of your response, I don’t know who you’re quarreling with, or about what. And in the second part, you didn’t read what I wrote, and you don’t know what the word “Marxist” means.

(A) Don’t be absurd. (B) I think that health care generally should be publicly funded; I favor the socialization of other broad societal and industry sectors as well. But not necessarily for any abortion on demand; I probably wouldn’t favor public funding for a couple who wish to get an abortion simply as a lifestyle choice. The devil is in the details, in determining the need/motive for an abortion.

Your views on abortion are certainly not as extreme as the views of men (and some women) passing new laws (or reviving old ones) in many states. I don’t consider a fetus to be a “baby” until it’s born, but this is to some degree a matter of semantics. Also, because I’m a man and am incapable of getting pregnant, and thus am clueless about what it feels like to have something growing inside me and what effect that has on a person, physically and emotionally, I am unqualified to say. I would leave the question of whether it’s a “fetus” or a “baby” entirely up to the woman and trust her instincts, and grant her the right to make her own decisions accordingly. I think you may be mistaken about the primary source of Planned Parenthood’s income; here are a few links if you’re interested. https://www.supertalk.fm/where-does-planned-parenthood-get-its-money/ https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/planned-parenthood-fact-v-fiction

Several states have defunded Planned Parenthood, meaning blocking the organization from receiving Medicaid reimbursements. So, no, if the organization is financially insolvent, then it can’t provide prenatal care. The bigger issue is doctors not treating women whose pregnancies are complicated, for fear that they’ll be prosecuted should the pregnancy not result in childbirth; these women’s lives are thus put at risk. Elsewhere you referred to abortion as “killing babies”; I don’t know whether your view in that regard is based on your perception of medical science or some religious conviction, but I concede that it’s your right to hold such belief. But I do hope that you would allow primacy to doctors to do what’s needed to protect the life of an expectant woman whose pregnancy may be complicated, even if that required aborting her fetus, especially if the fetus is unlikely to survive once born (as is often the case in such circumstances).

I’m not entirely sure what your point was in parts of your post; my initial proposals may sound insane, especially to men who are used to having their way, but my basic point is that men are equally at fault for an unwanted pregnancy (in cases of rape and some other circumstances, they are 100 percent at fault), and if they were held equally responsible by the law, then men in power might not be so quick to push antiabortion legislation. And in states that have eliminated abortion rights, the lack of prenatal care extends to doctors who are now reluctant to treat pregnant women, fearing prosecution should the pregnancy fail for whatever reason. The expectant father, meanwhile, has already moved on, maybe with a new girlfriend. It’s sickening, and, as you say, it’s all about punishing women (or keeping them in their place).

Yes, both parents could post an equal bond, that would be fair in most cases. I’d be in favor of that. My basic point is, in all of this new illegalization of abortion, legislators talk about punishing the women, the doctors, the clinics dispensing care and advice, the Uber drivers -- everyone but the men (expectant fathers) who are at least equally responsible for the pregnancy to begin with. If proposals for punishing the men were ever to gain traction in the courts, I’m sure that legislators, judges, priests, etc., mostly men themselves, would be far more reluctant to advocate antiabortion measures.

Exactly. If students are protesting their university’s investments in the defense industry, specifically companies involved in arms deliveries to Israel, they have every right to do that; it’s their money (or their family’s money). And I don’t believe there are any universities in the US who have a financial stake in arming either of the generals who are currently destroying Sudan (though I could be wrong ...). But beyond that, so many people are laser-focused on the bad behavior of the Israeli state who don’t care a hoot about Ukraine or Sudan (or who can’t find Tigray or Xinjiang or Burma or Kivu on a map), that one begins to wonder why ...

Right, I’m also in favor of responsible behavior, and let’s start by legally obligating both parties to an unexpected or out-of-wedlock pregnancy. If the couple’s finances are not integrated, the man who impregnated the woman should immediately be forced to post a bond of $150,000, about half the average cost of raising a child to age 18. If abortions are illegal but an abortion occurs, the man who impregnated the woman should be equally liable to prosecution. If the pregnant woman dies because of lack of access to prenatal care, as is increasingly the case in states where abortion is illegal, the man who impregnated her should be prosecuted for murder, because by inseminating her in a state that does not provide adequate prenatal care, he is actively imperiling her health. That would be REALLY responsible, but the men who decide these things, including two men on the US Supreme Court who themselves abused women, I’m sure would dismiss these arguments as ludicrous, as they call into question their patriarchy.

So now we’re supposed to show compassion for this pathetic POS? That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day! Thanks, but I’ll save my compassion for those living in the US who are less well-off than me and who suffer directly from the actions and rhetoric of said pathetic POS, e.g. women who can no longer receive adequate health care, Spanish-speaking workers who face an uncertain future, Muslims and Jews increasingly vulnerable to hatred and bigotry unleashed by right-wing rhetoric, etc.