@AshLael's banner p

AshLael

Just here to farm downvotes

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 June 15 03:16:03 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 2498

AshLael

Just here to farm downvotes

2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 June 15 03:16:03 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2498

Verified Email

I don't dispute that people in the UK want lower migration. But as you say, elections are not single issue referendums and tradeoffs need to be made. People also want lower taxes, more services, less debt, and free ponies. You can't get everything you want, and you have to discern who is going to make the tradeoffs you want.

A growing number of people are deciding "no, actually, I really do want lower migration at the expense of other priorities" and voting accordingly. But clearly it's not yet enough to force the UK parliament to give it to them.

It is however a Beatle song.

Have they? At the last election 14.3% of voters put their support behind the party who most credibly promised to stop immigration. Many more voted for the Tory and Labour parties, who have demonstrated no interest in doing so.

Who was Paddock attempting to assassinate in this theory?

Which is kind of more alarming if so - not only did they strip out the original anti-paedophilia language, but they also resisted efforts to put anti-paedophilia language back in. Just... why?

I've been doing a bit of digging and am having some trouble figuring out exactly what is going on. It seems as though the basic story is:

Bill amends definition as previously discussed. A bit of a stink gets kicked up about it.

A republican legislator (Niska) responds to that stink by proposing the amendment you link to, which passes easily. But it seems that the bill he was amending was a different one to the actual Take Pride Act (H.F. 447 vs H.F. 1655) I think? And as far as I can tell the Niska amendment language is not included in the current law: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/364.09

Not sure if the Niska amendment has just not taken effect yet or if HF 447 didn't pass or what.

I find the song and dance where anytime someone criticizes the "weird" meme they themselves get called weird to be very tiresome and toxic.

Harris has a greater claim to being black than Obama, since Obama grew up with his white mom and grandparents. That Harris is not acculturated to Black struggles because her Jamaican father was an academic who mixed with polite company instead of living the black experience is only mildly inconvenient for Harris

Didn't her parents split up when she was young and she grew up with her indian mother?

I presume he's referring to Stephen van de Welde.

I'd be a single issue voter for any party that could credibly increase the housing supply in high demand areas.

Isn't that party just the GOP? Like it's more a state and local issue than federal, but when you look at places with unified Republican control and a lot of people wanting to live there you're looking at places like Texas which does in fact build a lot of housing.

Such a person's sexual orientation would be "bisexual" since they are attracted to people of either sex.

And does the statute protect people on the basis of their, ahem, "bisexuality"?

Okay, but that's shifting the goalposts. You were saying "Trump doesn't flip flop", now you're saying "Trump was correct to change his position". Those are different arguments.

You could, if you were so inclined, come up with a sympathetic argument for why Trump changed opinions on any given issue. Sometimes those arguments might even be somewhat true. But I think the underlying reality is that Trump just honestly doesn't have strong beliefs on many issues and changes position pretty easily.

Disagree. The definition is kind of a disaster in general. As you say it states that it is "attraction to a person without regard to their sex" which is not at all the same as "attraction to a person because of their sex". If a person is equally attracted to little girls and little boys, how does this definition exclude him?

Too many to list, but for just one example he's gone a complete 180 on the Jan 6 rioters - on Jan 7th he said "The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy. To those who engaged in the acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country. And to those who broke the law, you will pay." By contrast these days he opens his rallies by saluting them, calls them political prisoners and promises to pardon them.

Sure... I still doubt a court would actually read the law that way (even though I totally agree that would be the normal and "correct" reading), just because WTF. But even if so, there's still no excuse for making the change in the first place.

Basically the rootclaim/Peter Miller debate (as summarised by Scott) convinced me. In particular it appears that the pattern of very early cases strongly suggest that the very first emergence of the virus was at the wet market.

Different country, different circumstance, blah blah blah, but Rudd replaced Gillard in 2013 three months before the election. In his case the honeymoon lasted about one and a half months.

It's kind of wild that her door was broken down by her fiance too. Like I get that his story is she locked herself inside and then stabbed herself and he broke down the door to get to her, but hoo boy. A broken down door, a woman stabbed to death, and a male partner placed at the scene is a fact pattern that normally is gonna lead to a prosecution.

Holy shit that is damning.

The most generous thing you can say about the amended statute is that it doesn't explicitly make paedophilia a protected class. But removing the explicit exclusion while directing the courts to interpret the bill's provisions "liberally" is more than a little alarming.

As it happens, I'm fairly convinced now that covid was in fact zoonotic in origin and the Wuhan lab didn't leak. But still, it's insane to rely on labs not leaking contagious pathogens.

I'd just attack her for all the positions she took in 2020. If she wants people to believe she didn't mean the things she said repeatedly on video, it's her job to convince them.

As @Felagund says, Trump has brought it up. This is what he's referring to when he talks about "post-birth abortion". Unfortunately he lacks the clarity and credibility for people to understand and believe him.

Of course the left and the media (but I repeat myself) insists that this never happens, even when we have abortion doctors on video openly saying it sometimes happens and they just allow the baby to die when it does.

I mean, I could postulate some, but it's honestly way too early for that. Never mind amending, they could just vote on a differently-drafted proposal.

I've seen plenty of badly-drafted bills and I'm not going to tell you not to be alert and concerned about the potential for negative consequences. But until we see legislation to the contrary I think it's sensible to at least consider the possibility that the intent of this effort is exactly what it's being sold as rather than a stealth attempt to pack the court immediately.

I don't buy this at all. He's more personable than the average Democratic politician, but the progressive wishcasting that he's got an aura of normalness so strong that he can define weirdness and normality by force of personality is nonsense. Walz talks up his small town bonafides, but he's not winning small town votes. He's winning Minneapolis votes, and Minnesota is a sufficiently urbanised state that that's enough.

Seems to have been a very happy miscalculation, as it led to them dumping the anchor they had at the top of the ticket.