Politics

Come here to talk about topics that are not related to development, or even Kansas City.
Post Reply
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2921
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

DColeKC wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2024 12:40 pm
phuqueue wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2024 9:28 am Noting that there are "thousands of abortions performed in the US" every day and that therefore anti-abortion laws are no obstacle to doctors performing medically-necessary abortions is impressively stupid. The vast majority of those abortions are performed in states where they are permitted. It's not like Texas is handing out life-saving abortions to anybody who needs them. Texas is just letting people like Josseli Barnica die instead (and so are other states, like Georgia). And while that particular article notes that Josseli was "one of at least two" Texan women to die when doctors denied emergency care, and those with more sociopathic tendencies might try to argue that only two is "not the norm," "not widespread," or whatever other language you might employ to minimize a young mother's entirely preventable death, we have also seen in general that maternal mortality has skyrocketed in Texas since the imposition of the abortion ban. Meanwhile, Idaho is being sued over precisely the issue that mean is highlighting, that nobody knows what the fuck it actually means to say that an abortion is medically necessary. None of the plaintiffs in that case died -- luckily they were each in good enough condition, both physically and financially, to travel to another state to receive the care they needed that doctors in Idaho denied them. And it seems -- and I am just as shocked by this as you are! -- that the risk of higher malpractice insurance premiums just isn't enough to outweigh the threat of a 99-year prison sentence and $100,000 fine.
In the cases you mentioned, it does appear that the doctors had valid medical reasons to perform the abortions but may have acted overly cautiously. Do some states need to clarify their laws to prevent this kind of situation in the future? Addressing these gaps would be beneficial. These cases don't necessarily reflect abortion laws endangering mothers' lives but rather instances that may involve medical misjudgment or malpractice. Anytime you change laws, there will be unintended consequences that will need to addressed.

By the way, there were actually more abortions in 2023 than in any year since 2012, despite recent legislative changes.
Yeah I guess killing people is just the price we have to pay while we work some of the kinks out, no need to get too worked up about it or anything.
DColeKC wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2024 1:00 pm
phuqueue wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2024 11:05 am
DColeKC wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2024 8:57 am As for trans issues, I believe we have a more straightforward approach. Biologically, there are two sexes, and we’ve traditionally structured sports, changing rooms, and bathrooms around these distinctions for reasons of fairness, privacy, and safety. People should be free to identify however they choose, but certain rules tied to biological sex—such as in sports—remain important for fairness. Preventing men from competing in women’s sports, for example, is a clear and practical measure.

It may not be a perfect solution, but without clear guidelines, this issue is likely to grow more complex over time.
For somebody who claims to advocate for "science-based policies," the fact that you think "biological sex" is so cut and dry suggests a distinct lack of familiarity with the science. Here is just one very high level introduction to the real complexities of "biological sex."

And BTW, misgendering trans athletes as "men competing in women's sports" is not really the level of respect that you previously claimed to have for trans people's identities.
The issue with some proponents of trans issues is the expectation that others must accept a single viewpoint, often from specific academic circles, as the definitive truth, while disregarding decades of established biological science. Scientifically, biological sex is typically categorized by physical and genetic traits, such as chromosomes (XX for females, XY for males), reproductive organs, and secondary sex characteristics. While not entirely binary due to rare intersex variations affecting a very small percentage of the population, biological sex is generally well-defined.

However, subjective feelings should not be equated with scientific facts. When it comes to children, feeling that they were meant to be another sex is not a sufficient basis for making life-altering medical decisions at an age when they are still developing. Feelings are not science - They are subjective experiences, science can investigate their causes, impacts, and mechanisms. However, emotions don’t override objective facts, they are one aspect of human experience that science seeks to understand rather than absolute indicators of truth or reality. "I don't feel comfortable in my own body" isn't grounds for a person getting a new body, we don't treat other similar issues like this and I''m not entirely sure why this issues is different.

Furthermore, there’s often an implication that people who don't use specific terms are being disrespectful. For example, when I refer to "men competing in women's sports," I am speaking from a scientific perspective, acknowledging that a biological male's sex is immutable, regardless of surgeries or hormone treatments. If "trans women competing in women's sports" is considered a more respectful term, I’m open to using it; however, I don't believe it should be mandatory to adjust language simply because some have determined it to be the "right" or "more respectful" way to phrase things.
Hmm, I guess, let me try this once more:
phuqueue wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2024 11:05 am For somebody who claims to advocate for "science-based policies," the fact that you think "biological sex" is so cut and dry suggests a distinct lack of familiarity with the science. Here is just one very high level introduction to the real complexities of "biological sex."

And BTW, misgendering trans athletes as "men competing in women's sports" is not really the level of respect that you previously claimed to have for trans people's identities.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2921
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republ ... 024-11-19/ Good to see the valuable work being done to protect sports and definitely not to attack people on the basis of their identity
MidKC
Parking Garage
Parking Garage
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2021 11:36 am

Re: Politics

Post by MidKC »

Are conservatives excited about mass raids, meme coins, TikTok and randomly agitating allies seemingly being Trump’s primary focus? I don’t know any conservatives personally, so I really can’t wrap my head around anyone being excited about any of this.
langosta
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2801
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 4:02 am

Re: Politics

Post by langosta »

MidKC wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2025 12:17 pm Are conservatives excited about mass raids, meme coins, TikTok and randomly agitating allies seemingly being Trump’s primary focus? I don’t know any conservatives personally, so I really can’t wrap my head around anyone being excited about any of this.
I have deducted: Yes, probably no (a play to the youth), probably no (a play to the youth), somewhat
missingkc
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1351
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 7:16 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Politics

Post by missingkc »

Good night, America.
User avatar
taxi
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2159
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:32 am
Location: S. Plaza

Re: Politics

Post by taxi »

MidKC wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2025 12:17 pm Are conservatives excited about mass raids, meme coins, TikTok and randomly agitating allies seemingly being Trump’s primary focus? I don’t know any conservatives personally, so I really can’t wrap my head around anyone being excited about any of this.
Yes, they are excited. Maybe not about those things specifically, but they are excited to own the libtards. That is what this is all about. And when those policies fail, they will blame the libtards. I am certain.
User avatar
DColeKC
Ambassador
Posts: 4453
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

MidKC wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2025 12:17 pm Are conservatives excited about mass raids, meme coins, TikTok and randomly agitating allies seemingly being Trump’s primary focus? I don’t know any conservatives personally, so I really can’t wrap my head around anyone being excited about any of this.
How is it possible you don't know a single conservative?

I don't know about meme coins or TikTok and your "mass raids" comment is a stretch. They're excited to deport criminals but they understand there are going to be things that happen that aren't ideal. There will be some bad optics that the media will play up, like perhaps a family getting deported. However, something needs to be done.

There's a ton of other things conservatives are excited about.
MidKC
Parking Garage
Parking Garage
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2021 11:36 am

Re: Politics

Post by MidKC »

DColeKC wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:49 pm
MidKC wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2025 12:17 pm Are conservatives excited about mass raids, meme coins, TikTok and randomly agitating allies seemingly being Trump’s primary focus? I don’t know any conservatives personally, so I really can’t wrap my head around anyone being excited about any of this.
How is it possible you don't know a single conservative?

I don't know about meme coins or TikTok and your "mass raids" comment is a stretch. They're excited to deport criminals but they understand there are going to be things that happen that aren't ideal. There will be some bad optics that the media will play up, like perhaps a family getting deported. However, something needs to be done.

There's a ton of other things conservatives are excited about.
My background. And I met most of my college circle through the Black Cultural Center. And my partner went to an HBCU and works in a progressive world. I also don’t have any in my family, which makes holidays easy lol. It’s not surprising I don’t know any personally. I’m sure I play pick up with some and work with a few but I don’t talk politics in those settings.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2921
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

DColeKC wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:49 pm like perhaps a family getting deported.
lol, we are only a quarter of the way through it but here is an early contender for understatement of the century
User avatar
DColeKC
Ambassador
Posts: 4453
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

phuqueue wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2025 2:22 pm
DColeKC wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:49 pm like perhaps a family getting deported.
lol, we are only a quarter of the way through it but here is an early contender for understatement of the century
You probably practice immigration law, so you should stay busy.

Thousands of families were deported under Biden, yet mainstream media barely highlighted their stories. Now, with Trump’s policies, we know those stories will dominate the headlines in no time. It won’t take more than a few days before we start seeing an emotional media blitz.

If we face issues like a produce shortage, the narrative will likely shift to blaming Trump’s policies or tariffs, even if the causes are more complex. The media machine has always operated in this way, and many people will accept these narratives without doing any research or engaging in critical thinking.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2921
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

I wasn't calling out your prediction about what the media will do, which is why I clipped that part from my quote of your post. Your understatement was to suggest that, among all of the "criminals" who will be, I suppose you would say, rightfully deported, there might possibly be some little slip up involving a ("a," singular) family that might also accidentally get deported, which I guess would be a real regrettable whoopsy daisy if it happens (but it might not! it's a "perhaps"!), but that's all, nothing more to worry about there.
DColeKC wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2025 2:41 pm Thousands of families were deported under Biden, yet mainstream media barely highlighted their stories. Now, with Trump’s policies, we know those stories will dominate the headlines in no time. It won’t take more than a few days before we start seeing an emotional media blitz.
The first part of this is true for sure. When in power, Democrats do all the same shit as Republicans on immigration. Obama was the "deporter-in-chief" and Biden declined to roll back Trump-era immigration policies (after running on doing precisely that), which were in any case merely built on what Obama had already left for him in the first place. Presidents from both parties continuously ratchet our immigration policy further and further to the right. Neither side is good on this, if we define "good" as recognizing and protecting the fundamental humanity and dignity of immigrants (suffice it to say, many would not define "good" this way).

I'm not very interested in what the media is or isn't going to do, but I guess since we are talking about it, all I will say is, I think how they cover this issue going forward under Trump remains to be seen. The political environment itself has changed a lot in the past few years. Democrats clearly picked up on a shift, as was evident in their own harsher stance toward immigration during the campaign. The media have covered immigration itself far less sympathetically in recent years. I can't say whether media coverage soured because public opinion turned on immigrants or if public opinion turned on immigrants because media coverage soured (or -- I'm sure there is plenty of polling on this, but I don't care enough to look it up -- whether public opinion has actually changed at all or if politicians just think it has because of the tenor of media coverage), but in any case, the question seems a little bit more layered to me than to just expect it to be 2017 again.

And listen, you could turn out to be right. The thing about for-profit media is that they will tell whatever story they judge will generate the greatest returns for them, so maybe that's demonize Trump when he's in office, demonize immigrants when a Democrat is in office, demonize Trump again when he's back in office. That would be generally consistent with the idea that a plurality or even majority of people like neither immigrants nor Trump, which is probably true. But it also ignores all of these other changes, which is why I don't see it as a slam dunk prediction.
If we face issues like a produce shortage, the narrative will likely shift to blaming Trump’s policies or tariffs, even if the causes are more complex. The media machine has always operated in this way, and many people will accept these narratives without doing any research or engaging in critical thinking.
The Democrats just got booted out of office in large part, it seems, because many voters remembered that things were more affordable before 2021, so the "media machine" definitely cuts both ways here. Trump's policies, including/especially tariffs (but also, for that matter, mass deportations), are much more directly inflationary than anything Biden did, but Biden still got stuck as the guy who made everything more expensive. I mean, "house becomes more expensive after construction crew got deported" or "washing machine becomes more expensive after new tax imposed" are not particularly complicated cases. I'm sure the Heritage Foundation will be happy to give you a bunch of money to write a white paper about all of the deeply complex real causes that those prices went up, but the truth will in fact be fairly straightforward.
User avatar
Highlander
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 10485
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Politics

Post by Highlander »

phuqueue wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2025 4:30 pm
The Democrats just got booted out of office in large part, it seems, because many voters remembered that things were more affordable before 2021, so the "media machine" definitely cuts both ways here. Trump's policies, including/especially tariffs (but also, for that matter, mass deportations), are much more directly inflationary than anything Biden did, but Biden still got stuck as the guy who made everything more expensive. I mean, "house becomes more expensive after construction crew got deported" or "washing machine becomes more expensive after new tax imposed" are not particularly complicated cases. I'm sure the Heritage Foundation will be happy to give you a bunch of money to write a white paper about all of the deeply complex real causes that those prices went up, but the truth will in fact be fairly straightforward.
What? Not a believer in the efficacy of the External Revenue Service? There was nothing I heard yesterday to suggest the next four years would see a better economy than the last four. Actually, I think Trump may be realizing the downside of his massive deportation plan and is quietly walking it back speaking primarily (at least so far) of deporting criminals and gang members. And mass raids that were promised for today have failed to materialize. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Another threat to the revive inflation includes the DOGE, and while it may have the remit of making government more efficient, the head of that organization lobbying Trump for a $500 billion effort to put humans on Mars won't do much to limit government spending. No doubt the government will work closely with Musk's Space X to make trip that a reality. And don't forget the cost of a military invasion of Panama and it's impact on the deficit and hence inflation.
User avatar
DColeKC
Ambassador
Posts: 4453
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

Trump has always kept the deportation talk focused on criminals and bad people. So much so he often exaggerates how many illegal immigrants are in fact criminals. Don’t get me wrong, the facts clearly say we have hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants with criminal records. Estimates say around 10% of all illegal immigrants have criminal records, so by focusing on that group, ICE will have their hands full for years.

We will not be invading Panama. It’s just another negotiation tactic. Trump leaves a legacy if he gets us out of conflicts, not into them.
TheUrbanRoo
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:39 pm

Re: Politics

Post by TheUrbanRoo »

What's Trump's more focused on (rightly so, in my view) isn't so much deporting but trying to block all further entries illegally going forward. He's more focused on sealing the border for good. Deportations are going to be focused on criminals (as noted above) but also illegal entries from the last 4 years, and illegal aliens who have already been delivered deportation orders but not yet been deported.

I think the bigger and more impactful news is what Trump's been doing on DEI though. His repeal of LBJ's EO on affirmative action is quite something. For instance, when Reagan tried to repeal this same EO in the 80's, Congress threatened to codify it into law if he repealed it. But now, Trump just sacked it and there's obviously no push back from either side at this point. A sign of the times we're in now, especially going forward.
TheUrbanRoo
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:39 pm

Re: Politics

Post by TheUrbanRoo »

MidKC wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2025 12:17 pm Are conservatives excited about mass raids, meme coins, TikTok and randomly agitating allies seemingly being Trump’s primary focus? I don’t know any conservatives personally, so I really can’t wrap my head around anyone being excited about any of this.
None of these other than mass raids are Trump's focus, or even the main aim's from the base. The conservatives want border sealed, deportations, every government agency (especially intelligence ones) gutted to the core, phase out of Ukraine, end to all DEI practices, and various other cultural reforms (education, etc).

And here's the catch--he's actually doing the stuff this time, unlike in 2017. He really didn't do much in his first term other than appoint judges. Now he's moving fast and is much more organized.
MidKC
Parking Garage
Parking Garage
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2021 11:36 am

Re: Politics

Post by MidKC »

TheUrbanRoo wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2025 4:40 am What's Trump's more focused on (rightly so, in my view) isn't so much deporting but trying to block all further entries illegally going forward. He's more focused on sealing the border for good. Deportations are going to be focused on criminals (as noted above) but also illegal entries from the last 4 years, and illegal aliens who have already been delivered deportation orders but not yet been deported.

I think the bigger and more impactful news is what Trump's been doing on DEI though. His repeal of LBJ's EO on affirmative action is quite something. For instance, when Reagan tried to repeal this same EO in the 80's, Congress threatened to codify it into law if he repealed it. But now, Trump just sacked it and there's obviously no push back from either side at this point. A sign of the times we're in now, especially going forward.
The DEI piece is interesting to me. CRT wasn’t scary enough but he really landed with this one lol. And he used that fear to immediately put people who have put years into their careers out of work. The private sector is reacting to him as well and these people are just going to be unemployed. People in our community are not going to all of a sudden look around and love him for destroying the lives of the people around us. I also don’t think this is a sign of things going forward at all. These things sling shot back and forth pretty quickly and conservative backlash to progress always happens.
langosta
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2801
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 4:02 am

Re: Politics

Post by langosta »

We understand it that the DEI EO removes governments ability to mandate M/WBE. This program needed reform (there are local examples of a few wealthy MWBE contractors handed job after job) and you saw local progressives try to get it reformed a few years ago (limited to smaller businesses or adjust to hiring from low income communities instead).

Will have a meaningful impact on reducing contracting costs for any local, state, or federal monied or incentivized projects. NEPA reform remains the biggest outstanding item that would positively benefit infrastructure construction.
User avatar
Highlander
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 10485
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Politics

Post by Highlander »

DColeKC wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2025 10:41 pm Trump has always kept the deportation talk focused on criminals and bad people. So much so he often exaggerates how many illegal immigrants are in fact criminals. Don’t get me wrong, the facts clearly say we have hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants with criminal records. Estimates say around 10% of all illegal immigrants have criminal records, so by focusing on that group, ICE will have their hands full for years.

We will not be invading Panama. It’s just another negotiation tactic. Trump leaves a legacy if he gets us out of conflicts, not into them.
He hasn't always focused on criminals and "bad" people. He has more than once argued that immigration was changing the fabric of America's culture and that all people in the country illegally will be deported if he is elected. I do not discount his rhetoric as all bark. I've had several debates with his followers who advocate this very thing (deporting 11 million people) pointing out that doing this would destroy the "fabric" of our economy and make us even more dependent on other countries like Mexico for basic food products and drive up the costs of food, homes, mowing our suburban lawns etc... Maybe he has realized the impact on the economy and the impractical nature of it all but I think his most of his stringent followers expect much more than just the criminals deported.

Panama should not even be in the discussion. It's not an issue. It has no impact on the lives of Americans. The canal is the sovereign territory of Panama and US ships pass through every day without hinderance. Nonetheless, I do take Trump at his word. If he says military action is not off the table (in Panama and elsewhere), it would be wise to conclude that he means it. Panama is almost certainly making this assumption.
User avatar
DColeKC
Ambassador
Posts: 4453
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

Highlander wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2025 11:13 am
DColeKC wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2025 10:41 pm Trump has always kept the deportation talk focused on criminals and bad people. So much so he often exaggerates how many illegal immigrants are in fact criminals. Don’t get me wrong, the facts clearly say we have hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants with criminal records. Estimates say around 10% of all illegal immigrants have criminal records, so by focusing on that group, ICE will have their hands full for years.

We will not be invading Panama. It’s just another negotiation tactic. Trump leaves a legacy if he gets us out of conflicts, not into them.
He hasn't always focused on criminals and "bad" people. He has more than once argued that immigration was changing the fabric of America's culture and that all people in the country illegally will be deported if he is elected. I do not discount his rhetoric as all bark. I've had several debates with his followers who advocate this very thing (deporting 11 million people) pointing out that doing this would destroy the "fabric" of our economy and make us even more dependent on other countries like Mexico for basic food products and drive up the costs of food, homes, mowing our suburban lawns etc... Maybe he has realized the impact on the economy and the impractical nature of it all but I think his most of his stringent followers expect much more than just the criminals deported.

Panama should not even be in the discussion. It's not an issue. It has no impact on the lives of Americans. The canal is the sovereign territory of Panama and US ships pass through every day without hinderance. Nonetheless, I do take Trump at his word. If he says military action is not off the table (in Panama and elsewhere), it would be wise to conclude that he means it. Panama is almost certainly making this assumption.
Almost anytime he talks about the immigration issue, he speaks about "bad people" which obviously isn't referring to those who legally come here and contribute to our society. I'm sure there is a very small portion of his base who would love every single illegal immigrant removed but the vast majority understand that's not only impossible, but would in fact have negative consequences. However, we can buckle down from now on who we let in.

The Panama and Canada talk has something to it, not exactly sure what he intends to do with that leverage but there's no way he sends Americans to die for any unnecessary reasons like those two topics.
User avatar
DColeKC
Ambassador
Posts: 4453
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

Highlander deleted his post about DEI but I'll still keep my response.

How can you be sure that the increase in hiring women, minority, and LGBT engineers was solely due to DEI initiatives? Isn’t it equally possible that HR and recruiting simply adjusted their focus to more actively engage with these demographics? It seems like a stretch to assume that candidates chose to accept job offers because DEI initiatives were mentioned during the pitch. How would they even know the company was previously considered “unfriendly”? And why would any company prioritize something other than hiring the best-qualified applicants? Imagine the outrage if a company explicitly stated, “White men are the best at this role, so let’s only target white men.” Yet somehow, saying, “We need fewer white men, so let’s hire anyone but white men,” is considered acceptable. Both are discriminatory.

DEI often feels performative and counterproductive. Most people don’t need a lecture on history or a blanket assumption of bias simply based on their genetic background. The concept is inherently divisive, telling us we’re all equal while implementing initiatives that suggest we aren’t. At my workplace, there are groups for “Black and Brown” employees and for women, but the idea of forming a “White Group” would never be entertained, nor should it. It’s a glaring double standard.

Research has also shown that DEI initiatives frequently have little to no measurable impact, and in some cases, they generate more resistance than progress. Equality of opportunity, treating everyone fairly without regard to race, gender, or other identifiers, is what we should be striving for. Equity, which focuses on equal outcomes, often comes at the expense of merit and fairness.

Equality, not equity, is the path to real progress.
Post Reply