General Politics Three: But what is left/right?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s all fascism.
 
Everyone gets to female dog about what terrible people the others are while simultaneously doing nothing. Win win.
Status quo. :trophy:

Halted funding for Israel, which is what so many Democrats have been clamoring for, but of course, the irony is, as always, the US will not get any praise or credit for it, just like the US/Biden got very little, if any, praise for the recent sanctions against Israel for the continued war and refusal to enter peace-talks. Folks will just poo-poo that and dismiss it as not doing enough, as always.

No implementation of harsh new border policies Republicans want, which so many Democrats have expressed opposition to, but of course there will be very little appreciation for that and folks will just complain about something else.

There is the issue of Ukraine funding, but maybe Ukraine is just going to have to accept their losses in territory again, and then join NATO to prevent further attacks. They don't seem to be able to continue pushing Russia back without substantial US aid.
 
This is the 3rd or 4th attempt to pass comprehensive immigration reform via a divided Senate and GOP house and its tanked every time worrying about it actually becoming law is kinda pointless it won't. The system is archaic and needs reform mostly fiscally related as it's badly underfunded but the whole bill isn't passing anytime soon.

The more interesting implications are the riders on the bill for foreign aid, them being directly tied to a bill that has 0 chance of being passed means those sources of funding also dry up for better or worse depending on your feeeling towards Israel and Ukrane.
 
For once you should ask yourself what it really means the Democrats are willing to even offer this. Yes they love our country, they’re defending democracy… but to what end?
Something, something, bIpASrTiSaNsHiP.
 
‘World coolest dictator’ Nayib Bukele declares election win in El Salvador
With soaring approval ratings and virtually no competition, the president had been expected to secure a second term.

El Salvador President Nayib Bukele has declared himself the winner of national elections that revolved around the trade-off between security and democracy.

Bukele on Sunday claimed to have won more than 85 percent of the vote despite electoral authorities not yet releasing the official results.

“According to our numbers, we have won the presidential election with more than 85 percent of the votes and a minimum of 58 of 60 deputies in the [Legislative] Assembly,” Bukele said on X, describing the outcome as a “record in the entire democratic history of the world”.

According to preliminary data from the Supreme Electoral Tribunal on Monday, Bukele had 83 percent of the vote against 7 percent from his nearest competitor with ballots from about 71 percent of polling stations tallied in a troubled process plagued by glitches.
 
This is the 3rd or 4th attempt to pass comprehensive immigration reform via a divided Senate and GOP house and its tanked every time worrying about it actually becoming law is kinda pointless it won't.
I’m worried about the guys who will bash down your door throw a sack over your head and bus you out to an extermination camp
 
The House is looking to fund Israel with a stand-alone bill.

It looks like it will be as dead on arrival as the immigration omnibus.

He has no incentive to pass a standalone Israel funding bill. Funding Israel's war in Gaza is unpopular with a substantial amount of Democrats. So there is very little upside for Biden.

There are four major items on the table:
1. Ukraine; 2. Israel; 3. Taiwan; 4. Border/immigration. Of those four, AFAICT, the Democrats are pretty united in wanting #s 1, and 3, while being split on 2, and being against 4. The Republicans want 2, 3 and 4. They are split on 1. So the Republicans are getting the better end of the deal because they are more heavily in favor of all 4 items. The only item that they really have to compromise on is Ukraine, because they pretty much favor everything else.

The only real sticking point for Republicans is that Trump is against the deal entirely, because he believes that doing nothing helps his campaign for POTUS.
 
1. Ukraine; 2. Israel; 3. Taiwan; 4. Border/immigration. Of those four, AFAICT, the Democrats are pretty united in wanting #s 1, and 3, while being split on 2, and being against 4. The Republicans want 2, 3 and 4. They are split on 1. So the Republicans are getting the better end of the deal because they are more heavily in favor of all 4 items. The only item that they really have to compromise on is Ukraine, because they pretty much favor everything else.
Lizzy Warren was on the Late Show. Sure she is a politician talking about something she voted for but she made out the immigration bit of the bill was not a total loss for people who want a sensible solution rather than just shooting immigrants.

Spoiler Reference :
3:37
WELL, HERE'S THE THING.
IT'S GOT SOME REALLY GOOD PIECES.
MORE RESOURCES FOR THE BORDER, WHICH IS GOOD.
IT'S GOT -- FOR EXAMPLE IT'S GOT WORK
PERMITS IN IT. SO PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE WRE
TRYING TO GET ASYLUM ACTUALLWELL, HERE'S THE THING.
Y WOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO GET JOBS.
IN MASSACHUSETTS, THERE ARE A LOT OF EMPLOYERS WHO REALLY
WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE EXTRA HELP, TO HAVE THE EXTRA WORKERS.PERMITS IN IT. SO PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE WRE
THERE ARE SOME GOOD THINGS.TRYING TO GET ASYLUM ACTUALLY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO GET JOBS.
THERE ARE SOME GOOD THINGS.
 

Tucker Carlson plans to interview Putin.
There shouldn't be an outrage, people already can find interviews of Putin on youtube. Likewise for interviews of Biden, Netanyahu and everyone else ^^
If you can't trust people with information, maybe rethink if you are really in the role of the arbiter.

(I posted it here since it's not war news, and the topic is whether it helps with anything to be against the interview).
 
Last edited:

Tucker Carlson plans to interview Putin.
There shouldn't be an outrage, people already can find interviews of Putin on youtube. Likewise for interviews of Biden, Netanyahu and everyone else ^^
If you can't trust people with information, maybe rethink if you are really in the role of the arbiter.

(I posted it here since it's not war news, and the topic is whether it helps with anything to be against the interview).

Tucker was spotted in Moscow.
Maybe he is there for a vacation?

 
He has no incentive to pass a standalone Israel funding bill. Funding Israel's war in Gaza is unpopular with a substantial amount of Democrats. So there is very little upside for Biden.

There are four major items on the table:
1. Ukraine; 2. Israel; 3. Taiwan; 4. Border/immigration. Of those four, AFAICT, the Democrats are pretty united in wanting #s 1, and 3, while being split on 2, and being against 4. The Republicans want 2, 3 and 4. They are split on 1. So the Republicans are getting the better end of the deal because they are more heavily in favor of all 4 items. The only item that they really have to compromise on is Ukraine, because they pretty much favor everything else.

The only real sticking point for Republicans is that Trump is against the deal entirely, because he believes that doing nothing helps his campaign for POTUS.
You know what would be funny? If it went to a vote and all Republicans AND Democrats united in voting against it.
 

Tucker Carlson plans to interview Putin.
There shouldn't be an outrage, people already can find interviews of Putin on youtube. Likewise for interviews of Biden, Netanyahu and everyone else ^^
If you can't trust people with information, maybe rethink if you are really in the role of the arbiter.

(I posted it here since it's not war news, and the topic is whether it helps with anything to be against the interview).
Lol I can only imagine what hard hitting interviewing that'll be
 
Blasts near Pakistan candidates' offices kill 26 on eve of election

Two explosions near electoral candidates' offices in Pakistan's southwestern province of Balochistan killed 26 people and wounded dozens on Wednesday, officials said, raising concerns over security on the eve of a general election.

The first attack, which killed 14 people, took place at the office of an independent election candidate in Pishin district.

The second explosion in Qilla Saifullah, near the Afghan border, detonated near an office of Jamiat Ulema Islam (JUI), a religious party that has previously been the target of militant attacks, according to the province's information minister.

The deputy commissioner of Qilla Saifullah, Yasir Bazai, said that 12 people were killed and 25 wounded by a device planted on motorcycle parked near the office.

It was not immediately clear who was behind the attacks. Several groups, including the Islamist militant Pakistani Taliban (TTP) and separatist groups from Balochistan, oppose the Pakistani state and have carried out attacks in recent months.

oLHERYW.png
 

Uttarakhand UCC: Indian state wants to govern live-in relationships​

Moving in with your partner in India's picturesque Himalayan state of Uttarakhand will soon require informing authorities and complying with a new law regulating "live-in" relationships.

This key provision within the state's expansive Uniform Civil Code (UCC) - which establishes a unified personal law for all residents, regardless of religion, sex, gender, and sexual orientation - has garnered more attention than the entire law itself. A common law has been one of the original promises of Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which also rules Uttarakhand.

Unmarried couples living together is still frowned upon in most parts of India, where these relationships are commonly referred to as "live-in".

Under the proposal, partners - the law specifies a man and a woman - must submit a live-in relationship statement to the registrar, who conducts a summary inquiry within 30 days. During this investigation, the partners might be asked to "supply additional information or evidence" if necessary. The registrar also forwards live-in relationship statements to the local police and informs parents if either partner is under 21.

If the official is satisfied, he enters the relationship in a register and issues a certificate; otherwise, partners are informed of the reasons for denial. The official can refuse registration if one partner is married, a minor, or if consent to the relationship is obtained through coercion or fraud.

Partners can terminate the relationship by submitting a statement to the official and providing a copy to their partner. Terminations of these relationships will also be reported to the police.

If partners fail to submit the live-in relationship statement, the registrar, if prompted by a "complaint or information," serves a notice demanding submission within 30 days.

Staying in a live-in relationship for over a month without informing the authorities can invite punishment: up to three months in prison, a fine of up to 10,000 rupees ($120; £95), or both. The punishment for making "false statements" or withholding information about the relationship may lead to a three-month-prison term, a fine of up to 25,000 rupees, or both.

Not surprisingly, the proposed law has sparked criticism from legal experts.

"A few years ago the Supreme Court had ruled that privacy was a fundamental right. The state has no business regulating intimate relationships between consenting adults and what makes this provision worse is the penal consequence a couple may end up facing for not getting the relationship registered . This is an appalling provision and must be struck down," says Rebecca John, a senior Supreme Court lawyer.

Currently, live-in relationships in India are referenced under the 2005 domestic violence laws, defining "domestic relationship" as, among other things, a connection between two individuals "in the nature of marriage".

To be sure, cohabiting unmarried couples are not entirely uncommon in India's bigger cities as young men and women relocate for employment and defer traditional marriages. (An aside: In a 2018 survey of over 160,000 households, 93% of married Indians reported having arranged marriages, while only 3% had "love marriages".) However, random surveys present a mixed picture.

In a May 2018 poll by Inshorts surveying 140,000 lakh netizens - 80% aged 18-35 - more than 80% of millennials viewed live-in relationships as taboo in India, while 47% preferred marriage in the choice between the two. One out of two Indians felt that living together was important to understand their partner better, according to a 2023 survey by Lionsgate Play, conducted among 1,000 Indians.

India's courts have sometimes frowned on live-in relationships. In 2012, a Delhi court deemed live-in relationships "immoral" and dismissed them as an "infamous product of Western culture", labelling them a mere "urban fad."

The Supreme Court has been more supportive. In 2010, the court endorsed the right of unmarried couples to live together in a case involving an actress accused of outraging public decency. In 2013, it urged parliament to enact laws safeguarding women and children in live-in relationships, ruling that such relationships were "neither a crime nor a sin", despite being socially unacceptable in the country. (In Uttarakhand's contentious proposed law, a deserted woman can seek maintenance from her live-in partner through the courts, and children born from such relationships will be deemed legitimate.)

Many fear the Uttarakhand law may drive away cohabiting couples, encourage reporting on them, and make landlords hesitant to rent to "unregistered" couples. Also, they say, the idea of counting and registering live-in couples seems peculiar in a country that hasn't conducted a population census since 2011.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-68224969
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom