Chucktshoes
Well-Known Member
This is so troubling. The ACLU was once a great organization. So sad to the ACLU abandon its core mission.
Political Discussion
- Thread starter David A.
- Start date
The infrastructure bill looks like it's starting to fall apart.
Biden ended talks with senate republicans yesterday to attempt to strike a bipartisan deal after it became clear the two sides were too far apart and no deal could be reached.
For republicans the infrastructure bill is just "too expensive" and could lead to tax increases.
Yet senate republicans had absolutely no issues passing a bill that costs $250 Billion yesterday address Chinese tech.
Yet, according to reports, republicans wanted to spend less than $250 Billion on infrastructure when negotiating the bill.
It just cracks me up how we spend money on America First policies, which are all about generating profits in America. Not investing in our country.
Biden's plans are now shifting to only focusing on one or two key republicans that might be a maybe for a yes vote as well as talking to democrats who could be a no vote like Joe Manchin to try to find a path forward to get the bill passed.
Biden ended talks with senate republicans yesterday to attempt to strike a bipartisan deal after it became clear the two sides were too far apart and no deal could be reached.
For republicans the infrastructure bill is just "too expensive" and could lead to tax increases.
Yet senate republicans had absolutely no issues passing a bill that costs $250 Billion yesterday address Chinese tech.
Yet, according to reports, republicans wanted to spend less than $250 Billion on infrastructure when negotiating the bill.
It just cracks me up how we spend money on America First policies, which are all about generating profits in America. Not investing in our country.
Biden's plans are now shifting to only focusing on one or two key republicans that might be a maybe for a yes vote as well as talking to democrats who could be a no vote like Joe Manchin to try to find a path forward to get the bill passed.
jaycee
Well-Known Member
I'm curious about perspectives. What they are, why people hold them, why people choose to believe what they believe, including myself. I'm mostly disinterested in the nuances of topics that are used to drive social and political identity wars to get people to perpetuate red and blue team membership. I'm also mostly disinterested in legal language and decision making including the language in nations founding documents. I don't particularly care about the intentions of people who were rotating the sun 250 cycles ago before we understood plate tectonics or evolution, but I do find it interesting how that language and intention is still used to define identities and of course I recognize the very real ramifications in defining the state, it's systems, and institutions.
I'm going to ask @Chucktshoes because I think he's well-read on the matter (I am not) and has a very well-defined belief system but it would be helpful to me if anyone and everyone would respond if you were willing to think about it... As I understand it the intention of the 2nd amendment is to ensure individual liberty, limit state tyranny, and provide the right to protect one's self, family, and property... I'm trying to stay at a high level here because I don't want to get into the weeds of interpretations, what is a weapon and what isn't, etc.... does the 2nd amendment actually allow for those freedoms in reality in the present day? What has always confounded me is the idea that anyone could actually defend themselves against the state. The argument in my mind has been that the state, whether it be the police, the military, or other entities that perhaps use other weapons of control can do so at will and no individual or even subset of individuals has enough resources (weapons in this case) to truly be able to defend themselves. They can go down fighting but the will go down if the state deems it so. I also recognize that guerilla movements can be successful at disrupting the status quo and certainly there are groups who currently exist and will continue to form to do so, but I feel (And maybe I'm wrong) the reality is that most people who think they can fight off the state are not embracing reality. So if the 2nd amendment protects people from the state in some regards (like the right to militarize) but doing so can only be successful enterprise for some form of social or cultural war (meaning those who think differently and/or are not as well-armed) not one against the state, is it still useful? Is it truly protecting those freedoms? or has the state become so powerful 250 cycles around the sun later that it is basically irrelevant and any individual freedom or right to it has become more myth than reality?
If anyone needs my personal belief system to understand where I'm coming from to respond. It's not well-defined. I equally see the ridiculousness of gun politics and recognize the utility of weapons and weapon ownership particulary for people in communities that are militarized by police. I don't own a weapon for health reasons, but I have on occasion enjoyed target practice and believe hunting is something that people need to be able to do as a food source and grew up around folks that had a reliance on deer as a winter protein. Hunting just for sport is pretty ridiculous imo. I don't believe that background checks or gun registries will do much of anything to reduce mass shootings or gun violence in general, although there are some practical applications to weapon ownership and believe that regular training and safety courses should be a part of ownership...just as they should be with your vehicle.
Not looking for anyone to defend their beliefs here just looking for opinions about whether these things that were written in the past really maintain their utility and purpose in the present.
I'm going to ask @Chucktshoes because I think he's well-read on the matter (I am not) and has a very well-defined belief system but it would be helpful to me if anyone and everyone would respond if you were willing to think about it... As I understand it the intention of the 2nd amendment is to ensure individual liberty, limit state tyranny, and provide the right to protect one's self, family, and property... I'm trying to stay at a high level here because I don't want to get into the weeds of interpretations, what is a weapon and what isn't, etc.... does the 2nd amendment actually allow for those freedoms in reality in the present day? What has always confounded me is the idea that anyone could actually defend themselves against the state. The argument in my mind has been that the state, whether it be the police, the military, or other entities that perhaps use other weapons of control can do so at will and no individual or even subset of individuals has enough resources (weapons in this case) to truly be able to defend themselves. They can go down fighting but the will go down if the state deems it so. I also recognize that guerilla movements can be successful at disrupting the status quo and certainly there are groups who currently exist and will continue to form to do so, but I feel (And maybe I'm wrong) the reality is that most people who think they can fight off the state are not embracing reality. So if the 2nd amendment protects people from the state in some regards (like the right to militarize) but doing so can only be successful enterprise for some form of social or cultural war (meaning those who think differently and/or are not as well-armed) not one against the state, is it still useful? Is it truly protecting those freedoms? or has the state become so powerful 250 cycles around the sun later that it is basically irrelevant and any individual freedom or right to it has become more myth than reality?
If anyone needs my personal belief system to understand where I'm coming from to respond. It's not well-defined. I equally see the ridiculousness of gun politics and recognize the utility of weapons and weapon ownership particulary for people in communities that are militarized by police. I don't own a weapon for health reasons, but I have on occasion enjoyed target practice and believe hunting is something that people need to be able to do as a food source and grew up around folks that had a reliance on deer as a winter protein. Hunting just for sport is pretty ridiculous imo. I don't believe that background checks or gun registries will do much of anything to reduce mass shootings or gun violence in general, although there are some practical applications to weapon ownership and believe that regular training and safety courses should be a part of ownership...just as they should be with your vehicle.
Not looking for anyone to defend their beliefs here just looking for opinions about whether these things that were written in the past really maintain their utility and purpose in the present.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
He consistent sites the Heller v US decision to carve out the “weapons of war” category. There must be some definition for that idea. I suspect that includes a certain level of ability to inflict maximum harm with low levels of effort.
you and him are inconsistent in this aspect. where you advocate for complete deregulation, he carves out exceptions. Why did he carve out that exception.
the above statement is not an counter to any idea I have presented. Having a consisten legal philosophy does not mean he is right. Also I didn’t say that he misused the statistic. It is useful for one dimension of lethality of these weapons, but it is not the complete picture. Frequency is not a good measurement when there are disparities in prevalence. That mistake is a hallmark of someone who has done no statistical research. Granted he is more educated and probability more intelligent and well versed. But this is a concept that is well covered in begging level research design classes.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
For me arguments that take the line, It’s in the constitution” ring hollow. The constitution is words written down by flawed people. The meaning of words change over time and differ from person to person. The context of their use also changes their meaning. Because of this when I hear that argument I think, “ Well it’s in there because someone thought it brought some benefit to society.” I’m much more interested in how we determine what that benefit is. I’m much less of an absolutist.
I believe there are benefits for people using arms as tools and self defense. But there is a certain about of harm that they cause. How do we minimize that? Regulation plays a part, but it won’t solve that problem. The problems of violence and dislocation from society run deeper. I think government has a role in solving these problems as well as other institutions common in humanity. But like every institution it can be wielded for both good and bad.
Last edited:
debianlinux
Well-Known Member
A couple thoughts I have on the 2A discussion @jaycee is prompting.
The framers of the constitution were just wrapping up a war against their own prior government. Weapons, ammunition, and supply lines for such things were critical aspects of said war. Opposing tyranny and keeping arms available were no doubt foremost in their minds.
One wrinkle to the notion of the populace getting stomped by government military action is the fact that the police forces and armed services are american citizens themselves. While our police are clearly acting well outside the bounds the average citizen would like to see them kept within, the military by and large are not. Taking up arms against your own acquaintances and social networks is a very losing proposition but mostly when those folks are themselves armed because otherwise all that is needed is just the threat.
A valid argument against firearms is that of immediate escalation. That is, in almost all cases one should try to remedy a crisis without producing a weapon because the weapon immediately escalates the situation to a place where use of the weapon is necessary. This paradigm carries over to the use of armed force against an armed populace.
I am really curious to hear what general disarmament of the population would even look like. Who is going to carry it out? The gun nut cops? The gun nut military? Who volunteers to try to ferret all the weapons out and take them, by force, because it will be necessary? If you're also seeing this conundrum then I submit to you evidence that bearing arms opposes tyranny.
There's an oft quoted saying that all genocides began with disarming the populace.
The framers of the constitution were just wrapping up a war against their own prior government. Weapons, ammunition, and supply lines for such things were critical aspects of said war. Opposing tyranny and keeping arms available were no doubt foremost in their minds.
One wrinkle to the notion of the populace getting stomped by government military action is the fact that the police forces and armed services are american citizens themselves. While our police are clearly acting well outside the bounds the average citizen would like to see them kept within, the military by and large are not. Taking up arms against your own acquaintances and social networks is a very losing proposition but mostly when those folks are themselves armed because otherwise all that is needed is just the threat.
A valid argument against firearms is that of immediate escalation. That is, in almost all cases one should try to remedy a crisis without producing a weapon because the weapon immediately escalates the situation to a place where use of the weapon is necessary. This paradigm carries over to the use of armed force against an armed populace.
I am really curious to hear what general disarmament of the population would even look like. Who is going to carry it out? The gun nut cops? The gun nut military? Who volunteers to try to ferret all the weapons out and take them, by force, because it will be necessary? If you're also seeing this conundrum then I submit to you evidence that bearing arms opposes tyranny.
There's an oft quoted saying that all genocides began with disarming the populace.
More on the Infrastructure bill bipartisan talk breakdown.
The number one line item by Republicans was not to increase the corporate tax rate. They want to leave the Trump corporate tax rate cut inplace. Biden was trying to cut a deal with them and only split the difference between what it was before Trump cut cases. But as always, likely because of the pact the republicans signed. Raising taxes in any form is a non starter.
The second thing Republicans were immovable on was combating climate change by investing in upgrading infrastructure to be more green. Because you know, protect oil and green entergy is the boogie man. Not to mention climate change is a hoax.
Biden conceded on both of these requests. The Infrastructure Bill would not be paid for by raising the corporate tax rate and the climate change line item was axed from the bill. This cut almost half a trillion dollars from the bill.
But Republicans being Republicans pretty much would not conceded on anything other than raising their proposal by $50 billion dollar. Which left the Infrastructure Bill still 3/4 of a trillion dollars away from Bidens bill after his cuts to meet republicans demands.
Biden and the GOP were just too far apart and Republicans were pretty much running on our plan our the highway in the deal making process.
I recently saw a interview with a truck driver on the weather channel app talking about the bridge failure. His trip across the Mississippi river to the FedEx airport only took 30 minutes each way before the highway was closed. Now it takes over 4 hours each way trying to get across the only other bridge in the area. He's a republican and was shouting at politicians to just pass the deal. It should not be political. Pass it and find the money to pay for it one way or another. (now I'm singing that song).
Many people in America don't question the need to repair our infrastructure. They say it needs to be done. So why is this such a political hot button issue right now?
The number one line item by Republicans was not to increase the corporate tax rate. They want to leave the Trump corporate tax rate cut inplace. Biden was trying to cut a deal with them and only split the difference between what it was before Trump cut cases. But as always, likely because of the pact the republicans signed. Raising taxes in any form is a non starter.
The second thing Republicans were immovable on was combating climate change by investing in upgrading infrastructure to be more green. Because you know, protect oil and green entergy is the boogie man. Not to mention climate change is a hoax.
Biden conceded on both of these requests. The Infrastructure Bill would not be paid for by raising the corporate tax rate and the climate change line item was axed from the bill. This cut almost half a trillion dollars from the bill.
But Republicans being Republicans pretty much would not conceded on anything other than raising their proposal by $50 billion dollar. Which left the Infrastructure Bill still 3/4 of a trillion dollars away from Bidens bill after his cuts to meet republicans demands.
Biden and the GOP were just too far apart and Republicans were pretty much running on our plan our the highway in the deal making process.
I recently saw a interview with a truck driver on the weather channel app talking about the bridge failure. His trip across the Mississippi river to the FedEx airport only took 30 minutes each way before the highway was closed. Now it takes over 4 hours each way trying to get across the only other bridge in the area. He's a republican and was shouting at politicians to just pass the deal. It should not be political. Pass it and find the money to pay for it one way or another. (now I'm singing that song).
Many people in America don't question the need to repair our infrastructure. They say it needs to be done. So why is this such a political hot button issue right now?
debianlinux
Well-Known Member
Because our current political climate is largely about making the other side look bad and passing this would not make the other side look bad.
Chucktshoes
Well-Known Member
I’m chewing on this a bit before I respond.
The latest in the infrastructure bill tonight is it's currently sitting at 48 votes for and 52 against. The only path forward is to get Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to back the bill, which both have said they would not without any republican support.
This could very well be a indication of how the biden presidency goes. There is no republican buy in to his agenda and it will be hard to pass anything with a 50 / 50 split. Biden's presidency may amount in getting very little to nothing accomplished.
This could very well be a indication of how the biden presidency goes. There is no republican buy in to his agenda and it will be hard to pass anything with a 50 / 50 split. Biden's presidency may amount in getting very little to nothing accomplished.
Chucktshoes
Well-Known Member
New Orleans is having so many problems with this because the pipes are 100 years old and we live in a city that is continually sinking. Right now, everyone is side eying our turbines because 2 out of 5 are down. One of the turbines was built in the 1960's and the other one dates back to 1915. A lot of our pipes are equally as old.
I used to do birth defects surveillance for the state and we had problems with elevated lead levels in kids in NOLA. They attributed it to lead paint that was used in a lot of houses and housing projects that was never properly removed from buildings, but I do wonder how much of this was actually due to lead in the pipes, especially since this was pre-Flint with their water woes, so lead in water pipes wasn't really on the radar for many people. There are tangible effects of deteriorating water quality on human health. I really wonder how many diseases are attributed to sewage leaking on the ground or in waterways--we all know after a storm not to hang out in the water because there could be sewage mixed with the water given that we can get a lot of water--and I wonder if this issue is contributing to the increase of diseases in homeless populations that we thought we had eradicated.
jaycee
Well-Known Member
Each municipal/public system, has its own challenges. I can't speak to wastewater treatment in your area but almost certainly due to the age of the city and when the system was built the oldest homes and the homes in the poorest neighborhoods would have lead service lines. This is the case in most cities in the U.S. It's a little bit less of a thing as you move west because the cities are newer. Lead solder was used in homes into the 80's until regulations changed. The lead isn't a problem per se if water is treated properly and scale is built up in the pipes which bounds it to the pipes. Of course aging pipes means degradation and the lead can become free with any scale that breaks off. In the case of Flint decisions were made by the state and the city managers the state installed to not treat the water properly as they were transitioning to a new water source to save money. This freed the lead in the pipes in the very old infrastructure. Basically, the decision was made to try and get away with something instead of taking care of people that had no political power. They tried to cover it up and thankfully were caught in the act.
Other issues related to this is the privatization of water service. In every case it's resulted in poorer, more expensive service, that costs more to re-publicize, but communities are doing it because public health is not part of money-making models / decisions.
All you have to do is look at how health of our populace has deteriorated with greater and greater privatization of our medical system to see this dynamic in action.
Biggest health insurer plans to deny ER bills if it doubts you had an emergency
UnitedHealthcare delayed the policy's rollout, but experts worry about chilling effect.
arstechnica.com
UnitedHealthcare is the largest health insurance company in the country with over 70 million subscribers. I have them through work since our health insurance switched over to what our global holding company provides for benefits. And all I can say is my plans are shit, and land me with surprise bills left and right.
Now it appears UnitedHealthcare is going to deny emergency claims if they deem that the reason you sought medical attention was not an emergency.
This will lead to millions of Americans having to evaluate whether or not if they are having a true medical emergency before going to the ER to avoid getting stuck with the bill. Am I having a heart attack or is it just heartburn.
This could lean to many Americans not going to the ER in a true Emergency because they are not sure if it is a true emergency and can't afford the bill if it isn't.
This seems to be a method to funnel people away from the ER and to do regular doctor visits as they are cheaper.
I think this sums up all you need to know about the state of the Republican party right now.
This statement came in response to being asked about Liz Cheney. To sum of the rest of the interview, Jin Banks said Liz Cheney was not a good leader and not fit for her position because she was not 100% focused on the Republican parties mission to obstruct Biden and win back the majority. She was distracted by former President Trump and that was preventing her from being on her A game to obstruct Biden's agenda.
This statement came in response to being asked about Liz Cheney. To sum of the rest of the interview, Jin Banks said Liz Cheney was not a good leader and not fit for her position because she was not 100% focused on the Republican parties mission to obstruct Biden and win back the majority. She was distracted by former President Trump and that was preventing her from being on her A game to obstruct Biden's agenda.
ayayrawn
Well-Known Member
Certain there is a sizable portion of democrats who are relieved that Manchin is around to be the scapegoat for them to make absolutely no meaningful change at all.
Djxfactor511
Well-Known Member
Completely agree. American exceptionalism tends to ignore a very, very long list of terrible things in our 200+ year history.