Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Shooting Blanks posted:

Aren't there laws on the books already criminalizing it if you intentionally infect someone with an STI? I know that laws exist specifically for HIV, not sure about other STIs offhand. But poorly defining it as just being "reckless" and not "intentional" seems arbitrarily vague - but then, the GOP's method for writing legislation these days seems to be "We'll put words on paper and tell you what they mean as soon as we figure it out."

"recklessly" is a huge jump downwards on what a prosecution needs to prove. Basically if they engage in sex while "likely" knowing they could spread a STI. Kinda crazy.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Staluigi posted:

the upcoming presidential election is, one way or another, between two people who will be terrible to Palestinians, one of which will deport many members of my family to an impoverished violent wasteland and the other who will not (and largely made it possible for them to escape here). so i don't even really get to participate in these slapfights. i am not privileged enough to be in the playpen, because i cant emotionally distance myself enough from the absolute dipshittery of people arguing that the only moral choice is to abdicate your voting influence in a way which only benefits the people who are on the far end of any of our political positions and who want to appoint white supremacists to govern our borders and immigration policy.

congratulations to those who get to have that kind of emotional distance though. must be fun, considering how frequently they make the effort to impress it into any conversation

My cousin, a father of a young child and been working her for 15 years got deported under Biden. It's been awful for immigrants the last 4 years.

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

RBA Starblade posted:

There's no way imo, Hogan's pretty well regarded in the area. Even a couple socialists I know in real life like him. The guy's a shoe-in.

Did these socialists agree with Hogan scrapping public transit for Baltimore in favor of rural projects that was so blatantly discriminatory he got sued for it? https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/23/maryland-lawsuit-baltimore-rail-project-racism-larry-hogan

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

socialsecurity posted:

Sprinting to the right compared to what, how are the democrats today more to the right than 5 10 or even 20 years ago?

Immigration for one thing. The evaporation of M4All. Acceptance of conservative courts steering the country backwards. The deaths of Great Society Dems in the aughts, a decade that began with Clinton doing his final touches of implementing the DLC's plan to shift the Democractic Party right thru deregulation domestically while pushing strident militarism abroad (i.e. Plan Columbia) and ended with Obama complimenting Reagan as he oversaw the collapse of the black middle class because he refused to intervene to stop foreclosures during the GFC. I can go on.

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

socialsecurity posted:

So by sprinting to the right you mean in the 90s and there has been no left wing movement on any front since then? I'm not sure how I should take one president making an offhand comment about another president as any sort of actual policy and not just something you are making out to be much more than it really is. Hell define "right wing" maybe we have wildly different definitions.

You said twenty years and I was referring to actions done in the aughts. And I mentioned the comment then more importantly the laissez-faire like action that is reminiscent of the person mentioned in the comment.

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

socialsecurity posted:

Yeah I was saying how are the Dems now sprinting to the right more than the dems of 20 years ago and you quoted me about how Clinton's third way bullshit was right wing.


socialsecurity posted:

Sprinting to the right compared to what, how are the democrats today more to the right than 5 10 or even 20 years ago?

My understanding is you asking how are the democrats more to the right than 20 years ago. I responded with a number of things, some of which, like immigration, you still haven't acknowledged. So now you're saying you were comparing how Dems sprinted to the right 20 years ago compared to sprinting to the right now? Then you should have reworded your post.

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Main Paineframe posted:

I wouldn't say that the Dems have moved to the right on immigration at all.

If anything, they've moved significantly to the left since the days when Bill Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which massively expanded the deportation regime and passed the Senate 72-27. And while that was a Republican bill rather than a Clinton bill, it did get some Dem votes, and the Clinton administration made no secret of its willingness to take it as an opportunity to brag about deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants.

Of course, he didn't hold that record long. As far as I can tell, the deportation record is held by the Obama administration. The Biden administration deported 142k people during FY2023, but that's actually quite an improvement over ten years before, when the Obama administration deported 434k people in 2013 (which earned him the derisive title of "deporter-in-chief" from pro-immigration advocates).

I mean everything you said is right but also against your point? I'm pretty close to the issue and professionally and I'm not aware of any attempt by the Democratic party to roll back the Clinton era laws, instead of like what Obama did, building off it by working with local enforcement and jails to deport as many people as they could, which they proudly trumpet here: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/immigration/strengthening-enforcement

DACA was a momentary pushback but in my lifetime both Democrats and Republicans have been building an escalating jenga tower of oppressive laws and enforcement against the undocumented.

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Skex posted:

Both are dumb arguments, we're in this position because the Right showed up consistently and voted R no matter who until they got sufficient power to stack the court with their ideological partisans while the Left spent the last 50 years trying to out virtue signal each other rather than doing what is actually necessary to achieve change and showing the gently caress up and making themselves a reliable voting block and thus difficult to ignore.

The fascist on the other hand they show the gently caress up. As such the "really just want low taxes" Republicans know that if they ignore them they won't win any elections. Which is why the entire Republican Party is beholden to these MAGAts and just keep doubling down on the awful.

Also I'm 53 years old and the idea that the Democrats are further to the right than they were on any subject than they were 20 years ago is just batshit delusion.

I've made my points, if you disagree please let me know why.

Thought of another way that Dems have moved right in 20 years. The concept of Medicare Advantage, renamed and fashioned into its current form in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, withthe basis of its existence relying on the pushing Medicare recipients into privately managed health care plans. Its extraordinary rate of increase has been coupled with a Democratic flagging of enthusiasm and retreat in plugging the holes of the Medicare system that Dems had sought to fill in previous decades, supplementary services like dental work, for example. Right now we're on the cusp of a majority of Medicare enrollees being in the program, which has a fixed payment system that incentivizes private companies to lower costs on individuals, with predicitble resullts:

quote:

In 2019, Medicare Advantage Organizations denied 13% of prior authorization requests that would have been accepted if the beneficiaries were in original Medicare.[16] In 2019 alone, Medicare Advantage plans cost tax-payers $9 billion more dollars than if beneficiaries were in original Medicare.

This veering into privatization is seen in other ways, like the embracing of Dejoy in the Postal Service, whose privatization and marginalization was critically attacked during the Trump administration, but is now free and clear to pursue that program.

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

socialsecurity posted:

Might want to tell the EU that because they fined the poo poo out of Tiktok for doing exactly that.

Facebook was fined for 1.2 billion dollars for mishandling user data flustered a couple of years ago. Ireland fined instagram for the same for 405 billion. The major platforms all do a terrible job of it.

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Kale posted:

Curious to see if Margie plans on looking stupid tonight by triggering the motion to vacate and the Dems probably giving enough hall passes to save him as a bone for getting the bill passed across party lines. Like this time the speaker isnt going anywhere clearly.

If the Dem was a really opposition party they would use this to pass policies aimed at increasing the chances of getting reelected. But...

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Boris Galerkin posted:

Is breeding weed to be strong but not smell a thing? With it being more and more legal (especially in my state) I smell it in cars driving past me every single day multiple times a day. Like ideally I think people who smoke and drive should be thrown the book but practically that's just gonna invite selective reinforcement, perhaps with a paper bag test. But if weed is being more legal I would imagine that it might be good if breeders start trying to tone down the smell a bit so people 20ft around you can't smell it?

Isn't that just using a vape?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Raenir Salazar posted:

Well no, Aslobrook's stance on israel, aipac, etc none of these things are at all likely to matter in a state with a 20+ Partisan lean. The Republican candidate can literally be pro-Communism and still win his race in a deep enough red state with a similar partisan lean, because the issues for the most part don't matter. Hogan's approval rating as its been said to you before literally doesn't matter, its absolutely not going to at all be a close race.

The polling is already seems to be indicating that Hogan stands no chance, this isn't one of those situations where more polling is going to suddenly reveal Hogan has a shot; that's just implausible and we shouldn't pretend at this point that it is.

Like that's the thing people were trying to tell you back a couple of months ago, you were just wrong in your interpretation of those polls; they weren't ultimately of any value. Those polls were obviously nonsense, and the recent polling ended up proving that fact; it isn't that "Dems are doing better", the Dems were always going to win Maryland and the polling wasn't at the time reflecting the actual likely on the ground reality of the state.

Being in a state with a comparable Dem lean people love crossing the aisle for memorable names. Hogan has been a force that Dems have flocked to, despite, or perhaps because, of his conservative economic stances while voicing liberal values. We'll see in Nov.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply