Tindalos posted:

idonotlikepeas posted:

Marty Two Bulls

Microplastics posted:

I'm glad you brought this up because he does this all the goddamn time.

time for a compilation!!!

Kavros posted:

It's weird to look at that signature, remember that name and realize "I knew the person who drew this, and they were awful and creepy to me"

Trapezium Dave posted:

Rall: Pain-in-the-rear end Liberation Front

idonotlikepeas posted:

Yaakov Kirschen (Dry Bones)



Jesus loving Christ.

Pants Donkey posted:

This is a dude casually regretting his country didn’t just annihilate an entire region of people in the manner ones discusses regrets regarding a pest infestation. The comic has an unspeakably Nazi spirit; the kind of naked inhuman honesty you only use when other like-minded monsters are present.

L. Ron DeSantis posted:

Yeah holy poo poo this is literally the Bleached Bones "parody" cartoon.

100YrsofAttitude posted:

Chip war by Ma Xuejing

idonotlikepeas posted:

Right? I was actually slightly hesitant to post them; I have no problem with pseudonymity in general (that would be pretty damned hypocritical), but it does feel a bit weird to have unknown people doing this kind of political propaganda.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

1

idonotlikepeas posted:

Adam Zyglis

the_steve posted:

Is there some sort of context I'm missing, or is this saying that avoiding toll booths is bad somehow?

Trapezium Dave posted:

Rall: Our Finest Legal Minds Weigh a Vexing Constitutional Controversy

Stultus Maximus posted:

I do not get this at all.

idonotlikepeas posted:

Yaakov Kirschen (Dry Bones)



If only this statement were made in a medium that could somehow express it in a visual, representative way instead of through text. Ah, well, I suppose such things are impossible.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

4

Clerical Terrors posted:

What is the "Black National Anthem"?

Cloud Potato posted:

Telegraph:

Phlegmish posted:

Cleverly, although not very originally, using East Asians as a positive example, presumably to deflect accusations of racism (although I don't see why that would suddenly be a concern).

Stonetoss isn't the worst cartoonist in terms of presentation, but I can't imagine him ever becoming popular to any significant degree. You have to be immersed really, really deep into the Culture War™ to hold all of these extreme positions at once. Seems like there will always be things in there that get received poorly even by the general 'chud' audience.

Catellite posted:

I see someone accidentally submitted their audition for Mark Trail.

DalaranJ posted:

Did you know? Rivers publishes comics anonymously exclusively for Cagle Cartoons. What could be the motivations for someone to publish cartoons anonymously?

I fully expect them to deny the holocaust by the end of the year.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

Spanish Matlock posted:

What I think is very funny about stuff like this is it's "super potent pot" not like, that pot you smoked in the 60s. That ditch weed was okay. This new science weed gizmo that the kids are using is a national crisis

Discendo Vox posted:

Cannabis legalization and regulation is not as simple as conservatives and out of touch old pols trying to block the devil lettuce, and it hasn't been for decades. The entire ongoing clusterfuck, including the various state legalization efforts, are the product of billions upon billions of dollars from some of the filthiest money and interests out there, all looking to profit from different legalization models. The incredibly long and winding process by which this has occurred is for two primary reasons:

1) Burns-like, these competing interests each are looking for different regulatory structures that will benefit them and close out the market to others. The tobacco companies trying to create a sideline through e-cigs want different laws from the OTC drug companies, who want different laws from the prescription drug companies with existing IP, who want different laws from the "legacy market" (read: organized crime), who want different laws from the alt-med and supplement companies, who want different laws from the pure VC groups and techlords. Each of these sets have cross-funding and pollination, all feeding through several dozen lobbying and trade association and "consumer advocate" groups.

2) There's actual public health concern. Cannabis isn't as addictive as other stuff on schedule 1, but it still hits a lot of addiction markers and qualifies as carrying abuse potential (including under the frameworks applied by DEA and HHS, which is why this is getting recommended at Schedule 3 and not for full descheduling). The really, really unpleasant elephant in the room, though, is data showing cannabis having a causal role in the development of schizophrenia. At this point (particularly with cohort data from countries with broader legal use, such as this study), it's clear that while the mechanism isnt well-characterized (and it doesn't hit everyone equally), it's pretty clear it's causal and not correlational (so it's not, for example, people having a tendency to self-medicate for early symptoms of development). Most of the industry groups under 1) aren't very interested in a regulatory setting that addresses that side of the equation. Regulations that would address it are made much messier because so far every indication is the mechanism is way worse in men than women.

FDA's seeking a whole new harm reduction framework and authority to try to handle cannabis and related products; it's unclear that it would work versus creating a new avenue for industry capture.

Spanish Matlock posted:

There is certainly a lot of interesting research being done on cannabis at present, which is actually a pretty good thing. But let's be real honest about how "cannabis use disorder is associated with a slightly higher incidence of schizophrenia, with the highest statistical significance in the 16-20 age group" is not the same thing as "marijuana causes schizophrenia."

Lifetime prevalence of alcohol use disorder among patients with schizophrenia is around 25%. That doesn't mean "alcohol causes schizophrenia".

quote:

Variations in patterns of cannabis use across the sites translated into differences in the proportion of new cases of psychotic disorder attributable to cannabis use. We estimated, assuming causality, that 20% of new cases of psychotic disorder across all our sites could have been prevented if daily use of cannabis had been abolished; the PAF for daily use was 21% for London, similar to that previously reported,3 but ranged from 44% in Amsterdam to 6% in Palermo. The local availability of high-potency types of cannabis resulted in a PAF of 50% for Amsterdam and 30% for London. Therefore, assuming causality, if high-potency cannabis were no longer accessible, the adjusted incidence rates for all psychotic disorder in Amsterdam would drop from 37·9 to 18·8 cases per 100 000 person-years and in London from 45·7 to 31·9 cases per 100 000 person-years.

Vib Rib posted:

Agnostic of any other specific thing here, I really just hate the whole line of argument Horsey is using here. It's the same childish logic so many idiots use everywhere.
"You think this thing isn't dangerous? Hmmmm, that reminds me of this other thing people thought wasn't dangerous... but it was!" Cool, so from now on anything people say is harmless is actually dangerous.
"Oh you think this new 'shoot yourself in the dick' invention is dumb? Well you know, people said that about the WRIGHT BROTHERS and their FLYING MACHINE!" Like the logic is a good invention was scoffed at once so if anyone scoffs at an invention it'll be good.

Pants Donkey posted:

As I understand it, the "immigration crisis" is basically Republicans claiming every person crossing the border is doing so illegally, when it's normally just asylum seekers. But they're all men in their 20s, which is extremely suspicious that a person of prime working age would go to another country to seek work. Why aren't we seeing more elderly women? Makes you think.

And Biden is like still deporting and doing most of the lovely stuff his predecessor did, except being less racist about it, but that doesn't win elections, so nearly four years of fearmongering about "invasions" and the "porous border". Ignoring that most of the criminal elements of immigration do not even happen on foot but via air or even by the Canadian border. And Biden isn't doing his duty because he's not actively telling the military to kill every immigrant on sight.

Is that the simple gist of it?

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

The border is pretty much boned until we fix the legal immigration process or people stop wanting to come to America. You can try to militarize the border and that might make it more orderly, but it is just going to result in the pre-2016 status quo of people sneaking across en masse instead of turning themselves in at the border - which is worse both in terms of the journey for the people and also likely to result in more illegal immigrants untracked and unsupported in the U.S. for the people who want to keep them out. Although, I guess it would be a success of stopping videos of huge amounts of people turning themselves in at border crossings if that was your goal.

The main problems with the border right now are:

- The ways to legally get into the U.S. for the sole purpose of making money/improving your quality of life are almost all totally shut out and the few that remain either require an employer sponsor or take 7+ years.

- Claiming asylum will stop you from getting kicked out of the U.S. temporarily, but "my quality of life would be much higher" doesn't qualify for asylum.

- This results in basically everyone claiming asylum because it is the only way to not get turned around right away.

- The asylum process was always slow, but it was also only meant to process groups that are 1/10th the size of them coming across right now.

- Trying to crack down on all the people claiming asylum "just" because it would significantly improve their life or economic situation leads to people with real asylum claims getting massively screwed.

- The asylum process has become the weird de facto official immigration process and it basically encourages people to mass the border and lie, which requires huge amounts of effort to handle and verify.

There are several options you can do:

- Fix the normal immigration process and guest worker/economic green card/H1-B Visa processes. They are currently capped at 85k per year, which is less than 10% of the total demand each year. That will allow more people into the country and take the huge weight off of the asylum process to better handle actual asylum cases.

- Make it basically impossible and horribly punishing to attempt to cross the border illegally or to try and claim asylum unless you have 100% proof and hope that doing this for a period of years will crush demand by making sure you have successful enforcement as high as possible so people think it isn't worth it.

- Massively expand the asylum system to meet capacity and basically just use a really broken and unwieldy system that was not intended for it as the "unofficial official" immigration process.


Several of those things are basically impossible and nobody wants to do all three of them at the same time, so . Instead, we just kind of hobble along with an outdated system and every attempt to update it since 1987 (37 years ago!!!) has failed.

Many Republicans just object to the idea of letting more of the "wrong" people into the country, so expanding the legal processes is a non-starter and can't even be negotiated. Most Democrats want to be compassionate and help people in the immediate-term, so the focus has been entirely on asylum-seekers and how to basically use the asylum process for an unintended purpose.

That sort of makes sense in the short-term, but it also hobbles the legal process in the long-term and results in both sides basically just attempting to inefficiently use the asylum process to weaponize their preferred political outcomes at the expense of legal and undocumented immigrants and actual asylum seekers who all get stuck in one inefficient process together because people kind of gave up on comprehensive immigration reform. It also teaches people who want to come to America that they need to use the asylum process and lie instead of going the legal route because the legal process is a complete waste of time unless you have 7-12 years, some money, and a lot patience to gamble that it works out for you.

Main Paineframe posted:

The border authorities really are getting overwhelmed, though. That's why his "shut down the border" offer is paired with literally doubling the current asylum officer workforce and increase the number of immigration judges by about 50%, so they can start whittling down the ~1 million pending asylum applications still in the queue and clear the massive years-long immigration court backlog. Especially since polls are showing that voters think immigration is one of the most important issues to them coming into this election.

1600 new asylum officers and 375 new immigration judges doesn't sound like much, but the US currently has 1600 asylum officers and ~600 immigration judges, total.



The average wait time to get an asylum application heard right now is around four years. The system desperately needs either more resources, a reduction of the number of people coming into it, or a major rework to decrease the administrative workload of each case.

The Islamic Shock posted:

drat shame nobody wants to actually fix immigration because at the bare minimum, it seems like taking the policy of "let's expand the legal immigration process you guys always say you wish so badly they'd go through the first place to greatly reduce the demand for illegal immigration you definitely hate" would at the very least be a useful blunt weapon.

Indiana_Krom posted:

The truth is the border crisis and debt will completely cease to exist the exact zeptosecond a republican takes office in the white house, and will not return again until the exact zeptosecond a democrat takes office in the white house, just as it has always been.

Republicans/conservatives love to complain about the border crisis/debt, but they absolutely hate any idea of actually doing anything about them. "No! Not that way!"

A conservative in another internet forum I used to frequent seriously suggested putting machine gun nests/emplacements all along the border (and this was back in the Obama years). So basically any realistic solution proposed to address the border crisis will fail with republicans/conservatives because it would not be nearly racist enough to get their support.

idonotlikepeas posted:

Pedro X. Molina

idonotlikepeas posted:

Carlos Latuff

JamesBont posted:

Ladies, Gentlemen, and the technicolor rainbow in-between...

From this day forth, I will post the weekly ramblings of a racist rear end in a top hat whose racist rear end in a top hat father was president decades ago and should have served time in prison for high treason...Michael Reagan!

TL;DR: Yeah Trump is a stupid rear end in a top hat that will all but certainly turn our country into a fascist dictatorship...but at least he'll keep out all the scary brown people!

JamesBont posted:

Can you link me to that, please? Sorry