Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

Momentum57

worships the 2010 Prius like a god
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,403
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
Trump supporter are plotting armed protest at all 50 state capitols from 16 January through at least 20 January, and at the US Capitol from 17 January through 20 January, an FBI bulletin states. It also suggests there are threats of an "uprising" if Trump is removed via the 25th Amendment before Inauguration Day.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
21,144
Location
Michigan USA

jack_christie

Forum Addict
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
5,690



 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
21,144
Location
Michigan USA

DanRoM

Forum Addict
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
8,812
Location
Ruhr Area, Germany
Car(s)
MX-5 ND, Tracer 900 GT & two bikes
This thread needs more content from random non-US countries. So, have this: Alexander Navalny just fired a broadside at Putin. I suspect it'll bounce off, but the video was informative and entertaining at least. And yes, I know that everything in it has to be taken with a grain of salt, given who it comes from. And I lack the skill and sources to confirm any of the claims, but I have no difficulty believing it. At times though, the video loses the focus on the facts a bit to deliver cheap shots which only divert attention from the real issues, but that's because it's a very long video that has to include some laughs to keep attention and also because Navalny is not neutral, but a political opponent of Putin.

Navalny’s team releases investigation into Putin’s 100-billion ruble ‘palace’ in Gelendzhik

[...]

 

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
22,875
Location
Utah, Banana Republic
Car(s)
06 XTerra, '00 VFR800, '07 ST1300, '11 Multistrada
I think someone is going to end up with a Polonium allergy...
 

93Flareside

Döner Kebab enthusiast
DONOR
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
19,137
Location
42 miles outside of Chicago
Car(s)
‘18 VW Golf GTI, '87 Mercury Colony Park
This thread needs more content from random non-US countries. So, have this: Alexander Navalny just fired a broadside at Putin. I suspect it'll bounce off, but the video was informative and entertaining at least. And yes, I know that everything in it has to be taken with a grain of salt, given who it comes from. And I lack the skill and sources to confirm any of the claims, but I have no difficulty believing it. At times though, the video loses the focus on the facts a bit to deliver cheap shots which only divert attention from the real issues, but that's because it's a very long video that has to include some laughs to keep attention and also because Navalny is not neutral, but a political opponent of Putin.



The man’s got balls, I’ll give him that. Though it’s sad that he basically told his wife and kids goodbye at this point. :/
 

DanRoM

Forum Addict
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
8,812
Location
Ruhr Area, Germany
Car(s)
MX-5 ND, Tracer 900 GT & two bikes
I think someone is going to end up with a Polonium allergy...

The man’s got balls, I’ll give him that. Though it’s sad that he basically told his wife and kids goodbye at this point. :/
Well, it has to be said that his people published this video shortly after he was sentenced to 30 days of jail for some more or less bullshit right after returning from Germany where he was treated after the FSB had tried to kill him with poison half a year ago.
Returning to Russia at all, and now publishing this, certainly sends the message that he is not afraid.
 
Last edited:

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
2,038
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Polo mkVI
I think someone is going to end up with a Polonium allergy...

Maybe he's the safest now from unexpected killing attempts that he's ever been.
Moscow always denied being responsible for the first attempt.
Now that he is in their hands, they can't really compromise.
If they can, however, it means that Putin's power is stronger than ever.
 

Momentum57

worships the 2010 Prius like a god
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,403
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
It has already started.

They miss the most important point, though: to regulate language by law is always an act of authoritarianism.

So the congress can't adopt rules because setting rules for itself is authoritarian? I think you doth protest too much.
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
2,038
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Polo mkVI
Wrong depiction of what I said (in this case, the good old strawman).

I haven't said that the Congress can't adopt rules, I have said that any rule regulating what cannot be said (or what -must- be said in a certain way) is authoritarian.

To avoid the risk of the discussion getting that way (which is extremely common, unfortunately), this does not mean that other people have to like how you talk, this means that it's wrong to -force you through law- to avoid certain words, and that it's wrong to -punish- you by law if you do.
 

PelicanHazard

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
2,458
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Car(s)
'13 Dart 1.4T mtx, '03 Ranger, '20 KTM 390 Duke
Perhaps we read different clauses, then, as the one you bring for discussion forces nothing and punishes nothing, it just changes the text of existing House rules in the name of inclusiveness (and, I would argue in the specific text of Rule XXIII's clause 8(c)(3), takes an unnecessarily large block of text and simplifies it). Here's the text of HR 8 for the curious.

As I'm reading it, it's like changing the name of the famous Chicago skyscraper from the Sears Tower to Willis Tower. Official documents include the change but there's no penalty or coercion for anyone who prefers to use the old name.

I would judge it not authoritarian, just a bone thrown to the non-binary.

Although it raises an interesting thought experiment for a layman like myself unfamiliar with case law: has anyone attempted the legal weasel that they are neither a him- nor herself when faced with breaking a law that only mentions those two terms instead of something more generic?
 

Momentum57

worships the 2010 Prius like a god
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,403
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
"The changes to gendered language only apply to the text of Rules of the House; no terms were banned
It's true that the Rules of the 117th Congress include changes to gendered language. But they don't "ban" the terms from use in the House. The change only alters the text of Standing Rules to strike gender-specific language and replace it with gender-neutral language. "

The article reads more that people who are outraged at this are chicken little.

Changing one document "Chairman" to "Chair," Fox News headline: Liberals to murder first born!

Reread the article.
 

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
6,439
Location
near Cologne
They miss the most important point, though: to regulate language by law is always an act of authoritarianism.
Not necessarily, but I don’t think that’s what they’re doing anyway. Those rules are not laws (as far as I can tell) and the only language this one affects is that of the other rules. Tempest in a teacup, unless you ask a “conservative” pundit.
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
2,038
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Polo mkVI
I would judge it not authoritarian, just a bone thrown to the non-binary.

As it stands now, it is. As I said, the article from USA Today is 100% correct, and the screaming conservatives are indeed exagerating.

This does not take away the fact that this action is dangerous anyway. There was no need for this change other than politics, as the motivation from Pelosi showed.

Maybe the bell rung in my head because we have had (and they are still enforced) in the regulation codes of certain public offices, several cases of "you will use word "a" when referring to "b" in public statements or in documents issued", and it really is disturbing.

Although it raises an interesting thought experiment for a layman like myself unfamiliar with case law: has anyone attempted the legal weasel that they are neither a him- nor herself when faced with breaking a law that only mentions those two terms instead of something more generic?

This could be a good reason, even if a similar case would show the shortcomings of a whole new series of choices and ideas.

Reread the article.

I know what the article says, it's exactly the reason why I posted THAT article and not some of the idiotic conservative rants running around. Reread my words

Not necessarily, but I don’t think that’s what they’re doing anyway. Those rules are not laws (as far as I can tell) and the only language this one affects is that of the other rules. Tempest in a teacup, unless you ask a “conservative” pundit.

My answer to PelicanHazard should probably answer you too. What happened is not significant per se, it's showing of a way of thinking. There was no reason, and the motivation was scary. Expect more of this in the next years.
 
Top