|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 02 2021 10:03 Zambrah wrote:Heres some Purdue Pharma and Sackler news, looks like theyve reached a conclusion to how theyre declaring bankruptcy. The Sackler (the Nutsacklers? Ballsacklers?) family basically asserts they didn't do anything wrong and that they wouldnt go through with much of anything if they werent shielded from future lawsuits. They're being made to donate a lot of money and have been made to leave the opioid industry, they also lose control of a bunch of charity stuff. I dont know what the best case scenario for this would have been, but the Judge and some state attorney generals don't seem super satisfied by it, though the judge does say hes planning on approving it in spite of his general dissatisfaction. Sacklers look to be out 4.5b, plus 175m from relinquishing their charity stuff. Quick googling indicates theyre worth like 11b. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-will-approve-purdue-pharma-bankruptcy-shields-sacklers-opioid-lawsuits-n1278319Show nested quote +The Sacklers have denied allegations, raised in lawsuits and elsewhere, that they bear responsibility for the opioid epidemic. They have said they acted ethically and lawfully while serving on Purdue's board.
The Purdue bankruptcy plan includes a $4.5 billion contribution from Sackler family members. The contribution is in the form of cash that will be paid over roughly a decade and also includes $175 million in value from relinquishing control of charitable institutions. Show nested quote +David, though, made clear that he and other relatives would not contribute billions of dollars of their wealth toward resolving opioid lawsuits and combatting the crisis without the broad legal releases shielding them from future liability.
When his father, former Purdue president Richard Sackler, was asked by a lawyer for Washington state opposing the bankruptcy plan whether the family or the company bear any responsibility for the opioid crisis, he responded with a firm “no.”
The key thing here is that 4.5 billion is over the next decade, which means in all likelihood they'll be richer off the investments they can still make with that money by the time they actually have to pay it. What a punishment.
|
Yeah that wouldn’t surprise me whatsoever. Rich fucks seem to manage to get ahead more and more in spite of basically any and everything.
|
Wow, the SCOTUS refused to block Texas's abortion restriction in a 5-4 ruling with Roberts joining the liberals on the court. Pretty big deal from what I've been reading around, and a bold example of how Trump's SCOTUS picks have crossed a line on the matter. Though challenges can be brought up and I think the law could still be struck down if someone sues over a bounty and it escalates to SCOTUS? It was over an emergency stop, not answering the constitutionality of the law itself.
|
Democrats aren't going to get rid of the filibuster or pack the court so there's not much of a strategic reason for Republicans not to bulldoze them on this stuff.
|
Yeah, from a Republican perspective I cant see a reason not to just do whatever you want. No real fear of election repercussions given their ability to gerrymander and suppress the vote, noone interested to take strong steps to stop them. A great time to be a Republican politician in a lot of ways.
|
Republicans using their entire Supreme Court advantage to allow red states to inhibit abortions is truly hilarious. Such an enormous waste. They could accomplish so much if they had any intention of governing. Their little shit hole states can be mean to women, that’s all they got lmfao
|
On September 02 2021 14:26 Mohdoo wrote:
Republicans using their entire Supreme Court advantage to allow red states to inhibit abortions is truly hilarious. Such an enormous waste. They could accomplish so much if they had any intention of governing. Their little shit hole states can be mean to women, that’s all they got lmfao
I personally fail to see the funny side, but in general terms, it does feel like a waste of political capital to primarily target issues relating to grievance politics rather than on running the country according to a coherent vision.
|
As predicted, the reporting site is being absolutely trashed by troll reports.
|
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
On September 02 2021 23:40 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2021 14:26 Mohdoo wrote:
Republicans using their entire Supreme Court advantage to allow red states to inhibit abortions is truly hilarious. Such an enormous waste. They could accomplish so much if they had any intention of governing. Their little shit hole states can be mean to women, that’s all they got lmfao I personally fail to see the funny side, but in general terms, it does feel like a waste of political capital to primarily target issues relating to grievance politics rather than on running the country according to a coherent vision.
Why’s it a waste of political capital?
I don’t personally like it but if your political capital is entirely tied into grievance politics, then pursuing that is the intelligent way to go.
There is no particularly coherent vision to pursue with that base, what they want is preposterous. So you may as well placate them with silly and harmful social policy.
What they want is unbridled capitalism and all the benefits they’ve historically got from that, while simultaneously preventing actors like China from being better positioned in certain domains.
Which under current paradigms just outright isn’t possible. But they don’t want those paradigms to shift either so you’re left with placating their other social demands or having them electorally turn on you.
|
In 2016, the Republicans did say, "vote for Trump, or else the court will rule unfavorably on important social policy issues."
Love it or hate it, they did deliver on that promise. Trump was nothing if not an effective court packer.
|
Part of me wonders if the abortion bill is just to draw attention away from the voting reform bill and the upcoming gerrymandering now that the census data is released. The $10,000 bounties for reporting abortions just seems purposefully over the top. If the bill survives it's a win, if it takes up all the attention while they suppress Democrat votes and gerrymander the state even worse than it is now then it's still a win. I doubt that the Republicans in power care more about abortion than they do about increasing their power.
|
|
|
On September 03 2021 02:04 LegalLord wrote:
In 2016, the Republicans did say, "vote for Trump, or else the court will rule unfavorably on important social policy issues."
Love it or hate it, they did deliver on that promise. Trump was nothing if not an effective court packer.
Trump wasn't an effective anything. Putting judges in place to vote the way Republicans want could have been done by a 5 year old with a stamp. It was all McConnell's doing.
|
Canada11607 Posts
Republicans using their entire Supreme Court advantage to allow red states to inhibit abortions is truly hilarious. Such an enormous waste. They could accomplish so much if they had any intention of governing.
but in general terms, it does feel like a waste of political capital to primarily target issues
Part of me wonders if the abortion bill is just to draw attention away from the voting reform bill and the upcoming gerrymandering now that the census data is released.
From these quotes, I surmise there is a failure to understand social conservatives or at least a failure to recognize their arguments as they argue them. This was the entire point of people holding their noses for Trump. For abortion abolitionists (which is I think how the modern movement is framing themselves) there is nothing better to spend political capital on. Imagine as a premise- that a human is a human in the womb and out of the womb. Abortion is then murdering babies on a genocidal scale. You best believe they are spending their capital here. It follows from the premise. They see it as the slavery of our modern era.
|
On September 03 2021 02:04 LegalLord wrote:
In 2016, the Republicans did say, "vote for Trump, or else the court will rule unfavorably on important social policy issues."
Love it or hate it, they did deliver on that promise. Trump was nothing if not an effective court packer.
Republicans understand we are in the midst of a high stakes cultural war. The left are like "Can we be friends? :3"
|
On September 03 2021 03:39 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +Republicans using their entire Supreme Court advantage to allow red states to inhibit abortions is truly hilarious. Such an enormous waste. They could accomplish so much if they had any intention of governing. Show nested quote + but in general terms, it does feel like a waste of political capital to primarily target issues Show nested quote +Part of me wonders if the abortion bill is just to draw attention away from the voting reform bill and the upcoming gerrymandering now that the census data is released. From these quotes, I surmise there is a failure to understand social conservatives or at least a failure to recognize their arguments as they argue them. This was the entire point of people holding their noses for Trump. For abortion abolitionists (which is I think how the modern movement is framing themselves) there is nothing better to spend political capital on. Imagine as a premise- that a human is a human in the womb and out of the womb. Abortion is then murdering babies on a genocidal scale. You best believe they are spending their capital here. It follows from the premise. They see it as the slavery of our modern era. I would understand these ''abortion abolitionists" a lot better if they care as much about a life out of the womb as they do for it in the womb.
If life is that sacred I would expect them to care a lot more then they generally do about welfare, healthcare, prison reform, you name it.
|
On September 03 2021 03:39 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +Republicans using their entire Supreme Court advantage to allow red states to inhibit abortions is truly hilarious. Such an enormous waste. They could accomplish so much if they had any intention of governing. Show nested quote + but in general terms, it does feel like a waste of political capital to primarily target issues Show nested quote +Part of me wonders if the abortion bill is just to draw attention away from the voting reform bill and the upcoming gerrymandering now that the census data is released. From these quotes, I surmise there is a failure to understand social conservatives or at least a failure to recognize their arguments as they argue them. This was the entire point of people holding their noses for Trump. For abortion abolitionists (which is I think how the modern movement is framing themselves) there is nothing better to spend political capital on. Imagine as a premise- that a human is a human in the womb and out of the womb. Abortion is then murdering babies on a genocidal scale. You best believe they are spending their capital here. It follows from the premise. They see it as the slavery of our modern era.
This is true and is worth remembering. What I am saying is that these silly thoughts of theirs end up throwing a ton of their political capital into the dumpster. I'm thrilled. But I think democrats have a hard time understanding the idea that this is genocide in the eyes of some Americans. If you believe life begins at conception, abortion is incredibly fucked up.
|
On September 03 2021 04:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2021 03:39 Falling wrote:Republicans using their entire Supreme Court advantage to allow red states to inhibit abortions is truly hilarious. Such an enormous waste. They could accomplish so much if they had any intention of governing. but in general terms, it does feel like a waste of political capital to primarily target issues Part of me wonders if the abortion bill is just to draw attention away from the voting reform bill and the upcoming gerrymandering now that the census data is released. From these quotes, I surmise there is a failure to understand social conservatives or at least a failure to recognize their arguments as they argue them. This was the entire point of people holding their noses for Trump. For abortion abolitionists (which is I think how the modern movement is framing themselves) there is nothing better to spend political capital on. Imagine as a premise- that a human is a human in the womb and out of the womb. Abortion is then murdering babies on a genocidal scale. You best believe they are spending their capital here. It follows from the premise. They see it as the slavery of our modern era. This is true and is worth remembering. What I am saying is that these silly thoughts of theirs end up throwing a ton of their political capital into the dumpster. I'm thrilled. But I think democrats have a hard time understanding the idea that this is genocide in the eyes of some Americans. If you believe life begins at conception, abortion is incredibly fucked up.
Likewise, if you think Christianity is about helping the needy, American Christianity is incredibly fucked up.
|
On September 03 2021 04:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2021 04:23 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 03:39 Falling wrote:Republicans using their entire Supreme Court advantage to allow red states to inhibit abortions is truly hilarious. Such an enormous waste. They could accomplish so much if they had any intention of governing. but in general terms, it does feel like a waste of political capital to primarily target issues Part of me wonders if the abortion bill is just to draw attention away from the voting reform bill and the upcoming gerrymandering now that the census data is released. From these quotes, I surmise there is a failure to understand social conservatives or at least a failure to recognize their arguments as they argue them. This was the entire point of people holding their noses for Trump. For abortion abolitionists (which is I think how the modern movement is framing themselves) there is nothing better to spend political capital on. Imagine as a premise- that a human is a human in the womb and out of the womb. Abortion is then murdering babies on a genocidal scale. You best believe they are spending their capital here. It follows from the premise. They see it as the slavery of our modern era. This is true and is worth remembering. What I am saying is that these silly thoughts of theirs end up throwing a ton of their political capital into the dumpster. I'm thrilled. But I think democrats have a hard time understanding the idea that this is genocide in the eyes of some Americans. If you believe life begins at conception, abortion is incredibly fucked up. Likewise, if you think Christianity is about helping the needy, American Christianity is incredibly fucked up.
I think the vast majority of Christians are only Christian because of social/family implications. It is mostly a masturbatory thing. It is a form of ego stroking to be Christian and it isn't really about being a good person or even following what Jesus says.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
