Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Wish I could say I was surprised. Mainly I'm just surprised someone managed to get actual figures out of the office.
And, in the same vein as that one, Kansas Republican Committeeman sends message to Democratic Congressional candidate, telling her "Your radical socialist kick boxing lesbian Indian will be sent back packing to the reservation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Why should they hide it? There's been no consequence for being a disgraceful waste of skin.
I worry that Kavanaugh will be even more brutal in his tactics, since being challenged by Dr. Ford and his other victims. It's the "you want me to be an asshole, I'll show you what an asshole is," mentality that so many abusers use every day to intimidate their victims and revel in their own power. It's fucking sickening, and I saw it every day for most of my school career. I've seen it in business, in law enforcement, in health care, and government (and no, this isn't the first time). It infuriates me, because brutality crosses party lines far easier than anything noble ever does - i.e. I expect more Democrats and Independents who are "tough on crime" to vote for these assholes than I expect Republicans who are about "family values," to vote for Democratic candidates who have good family values platforms. We are in a LOT of trouble.
Yeah, I know it's WaPo, but:
Can a Supreme Court justice be forcibly removed from the bench?
Can a Supreme Court justice be forcibly removed from the bench?
--Patrick
I actually agree with you on both points. I would argue that McConnell has created an environment where precedent can no longer be held up. I don't think Gorsuch should be impeached; it was shitty the way they handled President Obama's nomination of Garland, but Gorsuch appears to be a reasonable choice. But Kavanaugh has numerous legitimate problems that seem to warrant impeachment.
GasBandit
Staff member
Wouldn't that be adjudicate it out of existence?
Honestly, they should just appoint two more more judges. As controversial as that might sound, it at least has precedent, having been done several times in the past.
Fuck that in every way imaginable. The "this could be used against us in the future illegitimately so we can't do it for a legitimate reason," defense is pure fucking bullshit and does nothing more than perpetuate keeping bad actors in place and turning a blind eye to the abuse. Fuck off with this bullshit.
Except it's less "this could be used against us in the future illegitimately" & more "this WILL be used against us in the future illegitimately". The question is "will leaving the bad actors in place do more damage than the Republicans massively stacking the SC with a whole bunch of other bad actors later?" I suspect at the moment leaving him in place is the lesser of 2 evils.
Although depending on how many other SC picks Trump gets & who he ends up nominating that may change.
figmentPez
Staff member
This is the description of an abusive relationship.
Well...yes. It is discussing the relationship between Trump's presidency & the rest of America after all.
GasBandit
Staff member
An abusive relationship seems an apt description of 99% of individual-and-government interaction.
So what does it take then? Where is the line? When is it time to stand up and stop the bullshit? We're already keeping children in concentration camps in the desert. We're seeing voter suppression on a massive scale. The DoJ is actively attempting to prevent police departments from following through on orders to stop racial profiling. Now we have a man on the supreme court who perjured himself on the stand. Even laying aside everything else he's been accused of (and not cleared of), he has committed a felony that would land any of us in prison, and it's landed him a position on the Supreme Court.
None of this actively affects me. Not one bit of it. I'm not an immigrant, and only one person in my immediate family could ever be considered an immigrant, and that's highly unlikely to happen. My vote will never be suppressed. And none of that matters. It's still wrong. It still needs to be stopped. So what it really comes down to then, is what's your line? Should we stop this now, and damn the potential future consequences to politicians, or do you want to be the one that shows up at the gates of the freshly-liberated concentration camp of full of dead and starving children:
"Gee, we're awfully sorry about all this starvation and death and stuff. See, we could have put a stop to it before it was too late, but it would have created a precedence."
Because there's already a precedence for where this is headed.
None of this actively affects me. Not one bit of it. I'm not an immigrant, and only one person in my immediate family could ever be considered an immigrant, and that's highly unlikely to happen. My vote will never be suppressed. And none of that matters. It's still wrong. It still needs to be stopped. So what it really comes down to then, is what's your line? Should we stop this now, and damn the potential future consequences to politicians, or do you want to be the one that shows up at the gates of the freshly-liberated concentration camp of full of dead and starving children:
"Gee, we're awfully sorry about all this starvation and death and stuff. See, we could have put a stop to it before it was too late, but it would have created a precedence."
Because there's already a precedence for where this is headed.
Well you write legislation to diminish their power and the courts back it up. Though I guess you're right in that you can just do a thorough investigation into the party and their donors without writing new laws since they're all so blatantly criminal.
The question becomes more one of, “If the people who nominated/confirmed these people are found to have been acting corrupt/illegal prior to the nominations/confirmations, should the people who were nominated/confirmed be stricken/removed?
—Patrick
Sounds like you're advocating rebellion. And for that, you may need guns. Lots of guns. That's the ultimate check on governmental power. And it's costly to even attempt it, (and it usually fails the first time too).
Basically, how far are you willing to go? I don't ask this in jest, I am really asking.
GasBandit
Staff member
Nick posted this on his facebook, I'm crossposting it here because I think it's an excellent article about toxic masculinity, and how it really is a thing.
Cracked - 7 reasons so many guys don't understand sexual consent
Or, how men are trained to think sexual assault is no big deal.
It's absolutely true. The guy struck a lot of notes that resonated with my upbringing, both in my peer groups and in popular culture.
Cracked - 7 reasons so many guys don't understand sexual consent
Or, how men are trained to think sexual assault is no big deal.
It's absolutely true. The guy struck a lot of notes that resonated with my upbringing, both in my peer groups and in popular culture.
7) Forcing yourself on someone makes them love you
Or as I've said it in the past, "Persistence always gets the girl. Always. Every. Single. Time. Never stop until she loves you."
6) Asking Permission is a sign of weakness
Every step of every relationship I've ever been in, I was just supposed to "know" what she wanted, without being told what it was, or even that there was something wanted in the first place. That led to a lot of wild mass guessing with Pauline, and sometimes I was wrong, but the consequences for guessing wrong was never as bad as the consequences for asking.
5) Women like to be pursued and always play hard to get.
AKA "No means yes/try harder."
4) Everything women do is intended to stoke male hunger.
Everything. There's not a damn thing you can do that I have not been told a thousand times is you trying to attract me. Wearing a bathing suit at the beach? Sports illustrated taught me you're enticing me. Wearing glasses? That's a fetish. Everything.
3) Sexual assault is a guy in an alley with a knife.
This is why so many people, myself included, have balked at the term "rape culture." Because when you say we have a culture of rape, we think you're saying we hide in alleys, waiting to drag women in and rape them violently. We've been programmed that everything that doesn't cause injury or tear clothes is permissible as long as we're attractive and confident enough.
2) All sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong.
He sums it up better than I ever could: Moral authority in America teaches that all sex outside of hetero marriage is instant damnation to hellfire. So, kissing out of wedlock is the same as rape, murder, gay sex, oral sex, masturbation, bestiality, all of it. It's all equivalent, because it all means you're going to hell. And that's why consent is never discussed, because 90% of the things in the "hell" category is consensual - so it isn't even worth bringing up.
1) Boys will be boys
They're our role models. Almost every super-popular example of manhood personified has forced sexual contact with a woman, be it Han Solo, Indiana Jones, James Bond (dear god, Bond straight up literally rapes Pussy Galore until she loves him), and on and on and on. And it's all OK because they're the protagonist, and they're living up to the male ideal. And that's what we're all taught to try to be. We all consider ourselves to be the protagonist, and we all want to be Men with a capital M.
Or as I've said it in the past, "Persistence always gets the girl. Always. Every. Single. Time. Never stop until she loves you."
6) Asking Permission is a sign of weakness
Every step of every relationship I've ever been in, I was just supposed to "know" what she wanted, without being told what it was, or even that there was something wanted in the first place. That led to a lot of wild mass guessing with Pauline, and sometimes I was wrong, but the consequences for guessing wrong was never as bad as the consequences for asking.
5) Women like to be pursued and always play hard to get.
AKA "No means yes/try harder."
4) Everything women do is intended to stoke male hunger.
Everything. There's not a damn thing you can do that I have not been told a thousand times is you trying to attract me. Wearing a bathing suit at the beach? Sports illustrated taught me you're enticing me. Wearing glasses? That's a fetish. Everything.
3) Sexual assault is a guy in an alley with a knife.
This is why so many people, myself included, have balked at the term "rape culture." Because when you say we have a culture of rape, we think you're saying we hide in alleys, waiting to drag women in and rape them violently. We've been programmed that everything that doesn't cause injury or tear clothes is permissible as long as we're attractive and confident enough.
2) All sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong.
He sums it up better than I ever could: Moral authority in America teaches that all sex outside of hetero marriage is instant damnation to hellfire. So, kissing out of wedlock is the same as rape, murder, gay sex, oral sex, masturbation, bestiality, all of it. It's all equivalent, because it all means you're going to hell. And that's why consent is never discussed, because 90% of the things in the "hell" category is consensual - so it isn't even worth bringing up.
1) Boys will be boys
They're our role models. Almost every super-popular example of manhood personified has forced sexual contact with a woman, be it Han Solo, Indiana Jones, James Bond (dear god, Bond straight up literally rapes Pussy Galore until she loves him), and on and on and on. And it's all OK because they're the protagonist, and they're living up to the male ideal. And that's what we're all taught to try to be. We all consider ourselves to be the protagonist, and we all want to be Men with a capital M.
Last edited:
I'm glad you and Nick are bringing this up. It's really important that we point these things out when they happen, because brushing them off as "no big deal" really becomes a big deal when you add them up. And to be fair, it's not just male writers that believe some of these toxic tropes. The authors of Twilight and 50 Shades come to mind. Kink and healthy sex are only healthy when there is consent from both parties.
I've been slowly trying to introduce this idea to Li'l Z, in an age appropriate way. He has a friend (girl) who likes to kiss him and cuddle him every chance she gets. And while he doesn't mind the occasional hug or a quick kiss, she can sometimes get pushy about it, and he's told me he doesn't like that. I've reminded him that while he should always make sure it's okay with his friends to give hugs or touching (because not everyone like to be touched all the time), but he is also allowed to say no to hugs or kisses if it makes him uncomfortable. I emphasize a good friend is someone who listens when you ask not to be touched, just like being a good friend means asking and listening if someone says they don't want to be touched at the moment. I'm hoping it'll sink in from both directions, and that healthly friendships and relationships comes from talking and consent.
I've been slowly trying to introduce this idea to Li'l Z, in an age appropriate way. He has a friend (girl) who likes to kiss him and cuddle him every chance she gets. And while he doesn't mind the occasional hug or a quick kiss, she can sometimes get pushy about it, and he's told me he doesn't like that. I've reminded him that while he should always make sure it's okay with his friends to give hugs or touching (because not everyone like to be touched all the time), but he is also allowed to say no to hugs or kisses if it makes him uncomfortable. I emphasize a good friend is someone who listens when you ask not to be touched, just like being a good friend means asking and listening if someone says they don't want to be touched at the moment. I'm hoping it'll sink in from both directions, and that healthly friendships and relationships comes from talking and consent.
Rebellion? No, I'm not advocating rebellion. Not yet, at least. I'm advocating waking up, looking around, and stepping back from the precipice. It's beyond time to put aside the partisan hyper-loyalty and start looking for candidates who are actually interested in helping people. People over money and power. We already have systems in place to put those people in power, if only we could get voters to turn out and vote about issues instead of voting party line - or get them to listen to logic and scientific reasoning over half-misunderstood, half-misinformed, hand-picked anecdotes designed to mislead them; but it's not going to be easy, and it may come to bloodshed.
The two party system is inherently flawed, and I think we can all see that. Regardless of the system's merits, people are too easily manipulated into pitting one side against another and becoming loyal to one team or another regardless of that team's misdeeds, because at least it's not the other team. Ideally we would be able to work within the limits of our current system while getting a new system set in place, and effect a peaceful transition of power. Realistically, it will probably come to war. We've seen too many big events, where people could have changed their minds and stepped back from the abyss, and blown right past them, to think that we're going to slow down any time soon. So it likely will lead to war. But no, I'm not calling for it. It's entirely possible that I might at some day call for rebellion, but this is not that time.
Heh.. i like how you still think precedent matters to them one bit...
Trump's tax returns would like to have a word with you...
Link to PDF of suit.
Too bad states like IN are just throwing away half a million voters and not telling anyone about it.
--Patrick
Considering the Liberals in Canada want to go the other way entirely, we have concerns here too.
Summary of the linked article: for years now in Canada you have required government ID to vote. It's been non-controversial for years. Legislation has been introduced (which is virtually guaranteed to pass) to reduce the requirement to a voter registration card they send you in the mail if you're on the rolls. They get this via your taxes (it's a box to check to share your data with Elections Canada). However, big problem: there are confirmed reports of them sending said cards to both non-citizens, AND to refugees who are pending even being allowed to stay in the country or not.
The entire paragraph above is in the article, or the article it links to. This isn't "it might happen" for non-citizens being given ALL THEY NEED to vote, it's already happening.
Good luck with democratic process down there guys! Ours is being actively fucked up up here!
The article corrected itself for mixing up voter registration with voter ID cards. Voter ID cards aren't being sent to immigrants and asylum seekers, registration cards are. It's still a crime to list yourself as a Canadian citizen on those registration documents.
It's got literally nothing on the widespread voter suppression going on in the US and is minor at best. If you think making it easier to vote for citizens is actively fucking up our elections process you are fucking insane.
Of course the Sun is ringing alarm bells, that's what the Sun does when anyone not the Conservatives do anything. It's almost as bad as listing Fox News when trying to discredit a Democrat.
It's got literally nothing on the widespread voter suppression going on in the US and is minor at best. If you think making it easier to vote for citizens is actively fucking up our elections process you are fucking insane.
Of course the Sun is ringing alarm bells, that's what the Sun does when anyone not the Conservatives do anything. It's almost as bad as listing Fox News when trying to discredit a Democrat.
To be fair, in Belgium, anyone who's staying for more than 6 months - including asylum seekers not yet treated, illegal migrants who already received a negative answer to their claim, non-permanent residents, migratory workers, etc etc - all have the right to vote. Very useful for certain parties.
Crossing the border NOT at a legal crossing is also a crime, but many seem OK with tens of thousands doing that.
Hint: if they had a GOOD refugee case, they'd be crossing at a real border crossing, and/or flying right in (those going into Quebec recently are mostly people who had the money for a trans-atlantic plane ticket).
Frank, take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_close_election_results
There's QUITE a few results on there from Canada, and it's not even winning by a FEW votes, but a complete TIE. So to say that this doesn't have an effect is just wrong.
Remember, if you don't read the other side, their opinions don't matter and don't exist! Also: Tom Parkin whom PAINS me with how misguided he is, but he's definitely the opposite of conservative. I actually actively read his articles, because he does have some good points sometimes, such as when Sears collapsed and the company's money was looted, rather than keeping the pension fund up.
Oh wait, the Sun was also the one who broke the story about the "feminist" Trudeau groping that female reporter in B.C., about 3 weeks BEFORE the rest of the media picked it up. I guess you shouldn't have believed that either until the CBC ran with it. Just remember Frank, if you link a CBC article, you've just given me license to say the same about anything there. Then we can just yell at each other, not actually debating anything!
Or maybe you can be a bit more open-minded about sources and READ what's there critically for facts, instead of dismissing a source entirely because of their general level of bias.