Politics is the Worst

[Gorani]

Wow, how naive are people really?

German government plans to buy some Predator drones from the US - and the opposition in parliament (social democrats, green party, socialists) cries havoc and sees German troops on a rampage against civilians.
So far German troops in Afghanistan only have access to a Israeli surveillance drone and almost no own air support (very few Tiger helicopters). The French-German Euro drone will be ready around 2020, so we need some system for the meantime.

Don't those people see that this system would not primarily used to hunt down terrorists, but to give our soldiers the air support they do not have now without the help of our allies (mostly US & British planes). I say if the parliament decides to send troops, we must do everything to keep them alive and return them home after the mission is done.

[RD]

Super-PACs just keep getting worse and worse.

Though, thanks for reminding me about all the rich people who donated to Romney because he supported lower taxes and less restrictions on them who are out millions of dollars. Feels good.

[Смерть]

So I guess N. Korea wants to aim its next nuclear test in the direction of the US -- seems for the moment they are going to turn to war against S. Korea... Glad to hear China and Russia backing down in supporting them a bit over the recent sanctions.

Of course Kim Jong-un is doing this for attention because (like his late father) he is...
(Some cussing)

[RD]

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...or-action?lite

And a more sensational take on the folks who voted against it:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013...ain/?mobile=nc

[Zalis]

I don't know all of the particulars of the bill, but the message here seems to be that voting against the bill = wishing violence upon women. The reasons for voting against are likely more nuanced than that, or perhaps just petty, but we have to be careful about assuming the sensational. Basically, "politics."

[RD]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violenc...s_and_services

According to Wiki, these were the issues:

The Act's 2012 renewal was opposed by conservative Republicans, who objected to extending the Act's protections to same-sex couples and to provisions allowing battered undocumented immigrants to claim temporary visas.[6] In April 2012, the Senate voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, and the House subsequently passed its own measure (omitting provisions of the Senate bill that would protect gay men, lesbians, American Indians living in reservations, and undocumented people who were victims of domestic violence).

Based on what we know about certain types of people and how they feel about civil rights for undocumented immigrants and same-sex couples... I don't find it that hard to believe.

[Alaris]

The reasons for voting against are likely more nuanced than that

According to the articles:

"Republicans have objected to elements of the reauthorization, most specifically a technical dispute over jurisdiction for Native American tribal authorities in the instances of certain crimes"

"Republican opposition to provisions for Native American, undocumented, and LGBT victims of domestic violence"

"Grassley’s amendment stripped all Native American, LGBT, and undocumented victim protections."

"Four of them did so because their radical interpretation of the constitution precludes federal protection for domestic violence victims."

"The version passed by the Senate today will next go to the House for a vote, where it is expected to encounter some difficulties, particularly over the protections of tribal women included in the bill."

tl:dr; seems they think it's a good idea for wives of white men, not so much for minorities.

[RD]

I'm reading this really interesting book about Lincoln, who was a Republican, right now (and today is his birthday!). He was a firm believer that our founding fathers weren't in favor of any kind of oppression, that they were actually even against slavery. After all, the Constitution says "all men are created equal." And apparently this was (and is) a fairly common interpretation.
It's fascinating to me that these men, hundreds of years ago, when racism and bigotry were socially accepted, could have been against concepts like that. And now, in the year 2013, when bigotry is (generally) frowned upon, some of our politicians are proud of their bias.

Also, it seems a lot of our early presidents barely even believed in God and were strict secularists. That's the next book, though. Still looking for a history of political parties in the US. Whigs, Freethinkers, Democrats, Republicans, Know-Nothings, Tea Partiers... What on earth?

Funny how things change. Kind of makes you realize how powerful education really is. People honestly believe our current system is the country was intended to run.

[MixedVariety]

Indeed, intense negotiations are underway in the House over a key Republican objection to the Senate legislation — new authority afforded to tribal courts to prosecute the non-native abusers of Native American women on Indian reservations.

Domestic violence rates are particularly high on reservations, and women sometimes face a legal limbo in which local courts hold no authority over the abusers because they are not Native Americans. But some Republicans are concerned that subjecting non-Native American men to tribal courts would strip them of Constitutional protections.

That's what I'm finding when I delve a little further into this. But of course, that will translate into more of that 'Republicans want to keep women subservient' nonsense to the people who only read headlines.

[RD]

Is it okay if I say I don't really mind if a rapist loses his Constitutional rights?

Of course, the problem is how do you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt without Constitutional protections? Oh, conundrum.