Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 296: "Needless Suffering and Death"

(+) Yeah! (+)

Russia announced supersonic missiles at 17x the speed of sound last year or so.

---

Time for another Cold War?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Russia announced supersonic missiles at 17x the speed of sound last year or so.

In that case this is pretty whatever news but just sounds bigger than it is.

---

I just posted it to make fun of the name
---

SmartMuffin posted...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1261368451555360774

Remember when all the experts assured us there was going to be a massive shortage of ventilators and that Trump was murdering millions by not sending the army in to forcibly convert Ford assembly lines from making trucks to making ventilators? Ah, good times.

No, because that didn't happen.

They warned without measures in place it would overwhelm hospitals. One of the worst things about this is people using evidence taking this serious helped as evidence it isn't serious.

Voxwik posted...

No, because that didn't happen.

They warned without measures in place it would overwhelm hospitals. One of the worst things about this is people using evidence taking this serious helped as evidence it isn't serious.

https://youtu.be/oJ9Hk7isjm8

---

Voxwik posted...

No, because that didn't happen.

They warned without measures in place it would overwhelm hospitals. One of the worst things about this is people using evidence taking this serious helped as evidence it isn't serious.

That's incorrect. Cuomo on TV said they needed 30k. Berated the government for only sending 4k. And then when Trump said he didn't think they needed that many went off about it.

---

Corrik7 posted...

That's incorrect. Cuomo on TV said they needed 30k. Berated the government for only sending 4k. And then when Trump said he didn't think they needed that many went off about it.

And sending in the army to force Ford to make them?

NFUN posted...

but if it's inherently a he said/she said scenario, you, inevitably, have to either believe the alleged victim is telling the truth, or you have to believe the alleged victim is lying. if you wait for a trial in a circumstance like this, you're implicitly siding with the perpetrator automatically and avoiding your responsibility to think for yourself by hiding behind the law which isn't well-equipped to handle this circumstance

at least under Inviso's assumptions and logic which you didn't dispute

getting back to this post, i'm not exactly sure what you're saying. are you saying that if you adhere to the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, you're "avoiding your responsibility to think for yourself by hiding behind the law"?

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

getting back to this post, i'm not exactly sure what you're saying. are you saying that if you adhere to the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, you're "avoiding your responsibility to think for yourself by hiding behind the law"?

Sort of, I mean innocent until proven guilty, while a legal standard i agree with, is just that, a legal standard and not necessarily a moral one,

---

i guess i don't get why you would be so negative about this approach, though. "you're avoiding repsonsiblity," "you're not thinking for yourself" and "you're hiding behind the law" are all obviously negative things to say, and they're only said because one is saying "i don't have sufficient information to make a definitive judgment on this case yet so i'm waiting for more information"? why?

---

There's also a nonlegal principle that should be self-evident- what is not proven is not proven. It's sheer stupidity to ask people to decide whether something happened when they don't feel they have sufficient evidence to decide.

---

The House has voted to temporarily allow remote voting:

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1261437061057392641

No Republicans voted for it; three Dems voted against:
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1261439125044858881

---

...WHY?

Because if you remote vote, there's no excuse for not doing your fucking job? That goes for the three Democrats as well.

---

Repubs and Dems are both fully aware that the more people vote the worse for the Repubs, so I don't see how that's slightly surprising.

Not voting becomes harder to justify when you can remote vote, its simple why they oppose it.

---

https://www.adn.com/politics/alaska-legislature/2020/05/15/alaska-legislator-compares-pandemic-safety-measures-at-capitol-to-nazi-treatment-of-jews/

highlight: "People want to say Hitler was a white supremacist. No. He was fearful of the Jewish nation, and that drove him into some unfathomable atrocities."

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Repubs and Dems are both fully aware that the more people vote the worse for the Repubs, so I don't see how that's slightly surprising.

To clarify, this allows remote voting in the House. Things are still very much looking bad as far as universal vote by mail go.

---

....oh.

Who are the 3 votes against?

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Who are the 3 votes against?

Actually I'm now a bit confused, because the page for the vote has 14 Dem votes against:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2020/roll106.xml

Unless there were multiple votes on it or something weird?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Actually I'm now a bit confused, because the page for the vote has 14 Dem votes against:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2020/roll106.xml

Unless there were multiple votes on it or something weird?

I see AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Ro Khanna on the list, so Im interested to hear why they do that.

---

I don't believe HR 967 is the actual remote vote allowance. I think it's a procedural vote to get them to move on to the actual remote vote... vote. There's a similarly procedural-y vote with HR 967 right before that (Roll Call 105) in which AOC is a yay as opposed to a nay in call 106 so there's some wacky procedural stuff that I won't pretend to understand. HR 967 also speaks to HEROES I think and some other stuff as well. I believe it's basically ending the amendment process on both those resolutions and moving it to a final vote so that might be why AOC voted against HR 967 if she wanted to add something to it... but idk parliamentary language is so arcane so don't take that as gospel as what 967 is doing.

If you read the text of HR 967 it looks like procedural stuff. It references HR 965 which if you read the text of that is 100% the remote vote bill because it lays out how it'll work. I don't the House Clerk site is updated with that roll call yet.

---

xp1337 posted...

I don't believe HR 967 is the actual remote vote allowance. I think it's a procedural vote to get them to move on to the actual remote vote... vote. There's a similarly procedural-y vote with HR 967 right before that (Roll Call 105) in which AOC is a yay as opposed to a nay in call 106 so there's some wacky procedural stuff that I won't pretend to understand. HR 967 also speaks to HEROES I think and some other stuff as well. I believe it's basically ending the amendment process on both those resolutions and moving it to a final vote so that might be why AOC voted against HR 967 if she wanted to add something to it... but idk parliamentary language is so arcane.

If you read the text of HR 967 it looks like procedural stuff. It references HR 965 which if you read the text of that is 100% the remote vote bill because it lays out how it'll work. I don't the House Clerk site is updated with that roll call yet.

Ahhhh okay, makes sense. Thanks!

---

I'm also not sure why the House's vote website is so much more confusing to navigate than the Senate's. It's really annoying!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

To clarify, this allows remote voting in the House. Things are still very much looking bad as far as universal vote by mail go.

I understood it. It pissed me off more than being anti mail-in voting, because there isn't even a good, fake excuse for why Republicans would be against it.

---

I wish I saved the quote, but one of the clowns trying to purge voter rolls in Wisconsin said something along the lines of "everyone voting isn't necessarily a good thing, look at Cuba!" That kind of puts the true motivation for the purges right out in the open.

*Fun bonus fact, an aunt so brainwashed by far-right propaganda she sleeps with the raging talk radio hosts playing on the radio is all upset she might be purged, saying how it's the Democrats doing it. Uh... no.

This is very funny.

---

Friday night massacre to protect Mike Pompeo:

https://twitter.com/travisakers/status/1261497707249754112

Trump continues to completely destroy the rule of law (and will probably keep getting away with it because not enough people care).

---

Good thing Democrats nominated their top man to bring him down.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Good thing Democrats nominated their top man to bring him down.

Well they had to, since the other option was some old guy who couldn't even beat the woman that Trump beat in 2016.

---

I dont know why you bring up that embarrassingly shortsighted line, literally every time I mention Bidens a weak candidate.

---

Are there any Democrats who wouldn't be considered a weak presidential candidate? All the potential serious contenders I can think of have big problems when compared to Hypothetical Generic Democrat.
---

Inviso posted...

Well they had to, since the other option was some old guy who couldn't even beat the woman that Trump beat in 2016.

funny, i distinctly remember said woman getting the popular vote against trump

---

Xeybozn posted...

Are there any Democrats who wouldn't be considered a weak presidential candidate? All the potential serious contenders I can think of have big problems when compared to Hypothetical Generic Democrat.

Magically non-term limited Barack Obama

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Magically non-term limited Barack Obama

Magically str8 buttigieg, too. as someone who lives in a blue state, it's strange to acknowledge it still makes a difference to much of the country

---

straight buttigieg would just be a normal basic ass Democrat no one would care about
---

Bisexual Joe Biden

Joe BIden
---

Oh, since we were talking about it last night, House Clerk site updated so we have the roll call on the remote voting (and HEROES).

The 3 Dem nays were: Larsen (WA-2), Luria (VA-2), and O'Halleran (AZ-1). The Squad were all Yays.

The HEROES Act also passed 208-199. 207 Dems + 1 Republican against 184 Republicans + 14 Dems + Amash.

R Yes was Peter King (NY-2).

---

Xeybozn posted...

Are there any Democrats who wouldn't be considered a weak presidential candidate? All the potential serious contenders I can think of have big problems when compared to Hypothetical Generic Democrat.

Bernie Sanders but old people don't hate him.

---

xp1337 posted...

Oh, since we were talking about it last night, House Clerk site updated so we have the roll call on the remote voting (and HEROES).

The 3 Dem nays were: Larsen (WA-2), Luria (VA-2), and O'Halleran (AZ-1). The Squad were all Yays.

The HEROES Act also passed 208-199. 207 Dems + 1 Republican against 184 Republicans + 14 Dems + Amash.

R Yes was Peter King (NY-2).

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2020/roll109.xml

I see Jayapal voted Nay but didn't get the rest of the progressive caucus to follow suit. The Squad is all on the Yay team.

I kinda wanted to see more of a fight since the bill is purely symbolic and has no chance in the Senate, but oh well.

---

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1261747580666552320

this is a thing that happened.

---

Excellent use of Tuckers vapid stare
---

why are conservatives so into putting political peoples faces onto movie clips

its like jibjab videos but over a decade late
---

Whiskey_Nick posted...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1261747580666552320

this is a thing that happened.

That was hilarious. I don't get why someone made the video, but it was funny.

That said, ID4 speech is probably top speech ever made from an american president in all of history.

I don't know most of those faces beyond Trump, Pence, and Cruz (Cruz was hilarious btw). But, I did find it funny the old drunk guy got to remain who he was at least lol.

---

Controversial opinion: Pacific Rim speech is better.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Controversial opinion: Pacific Rim speech is better.

Jesus. Link me the speech at least so I can compare, but that seems hard to believe figuring I don't remember it from the movie.

---

https://youtu.be/-7Sow81yi24

---

No way.

To be fair though, I literally do not think the independence day speech is even beatable.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

why are conservatives so into putting political peoples faces onto movie clips

its like jibjab videos but over a decade late

conservatives basically live peddling off the idea that poor people can be rich white guys like them.

So wanting to be someone else aligns with their base.

---