What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

Published

Nurses Month 2024 | Discounts & Freebies AORN Celebrates Nurses Month

Something to understand what nurses think about re the Current News and their opinions!

Specializes in Hospice.

Re the Supreme Court, I’m arguing that expanding the court might have unforeseen consequences that might be worse than what we have now ... like escalating the politicization of the judiciary to the point it becomes irrelevant to the rule of law, for instance.

Re the political system, I never argued that it was fair and balanced or that we should “play nice”. More like play honestly. If the goal is bipartisanship, then make it possible for bipartisanship to happen. If it doesn’t, well, move ahead without ‘em ... as Biden et al are doing now. But to say that just because the other guy plays dirty, it’s OK if I do? Just another iteration of the same “whataboutism” for which we call out our neocon posters here on AN all the time. Just sayin’.

The tension between principle and expediency will always be with us, especially in the practice of the art of getting things done - IOW politics. There are no easy answers.

Gotta go to work. Thank you all for a good discussion.

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
38 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

If everyone breaks the rules then we have lost the quest for a more perfect union. 

You have to break eggs to scramble them. 

Most Libs and Dems are generally good people with good education and striving to be a better person. They are more centered and less likely to commit egregious crimes or behave like the current crop of republicans. 

Putting them in charge will only bode well for the future. But we have to ensure that we are in charge and can make the necessary changes. If your opponent is playing dirty, you have to nullify them because there really isn't any white knights coming to your rescue or fate! 

You make your success and must take your fate into your own hands! 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.

Politicians breaking laws as a strategy only demonstrates that laws are meaningless unless used to control the masses.  IMHO

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Politicians breaking laws as a strategy only demonstrates that laws are meaningless unless used to control the masses.  IMHO

Agree, but we have to be realistic. If playing fields aren't level then the game will always favor the cheaters. To nullify cheaters, you have to change the rules so they can't cheat. To change the rules you have to be in the position to be able to do so. 

Isn't that exactly what the republicans did? They relied on the weaknesses of Dems re fair play and bipartisanship and slowly but surely played the long game. Republicans are inherently corrupt and bad. From the Televangelists and the Bible belters to the extreme right 'proud boys'. They are by nature, haters and hypocrites! 

Criminals are regulated to curb their criminality and we don't expect a come to God moment changing them. Republicans sided with a man who murdered hundreds of thousands of lives through his lies and still hasn't apologized or appear remorseful. What does it say about them that for the sake of a job, they would sell their souls and the future happiness of their children? Do you possibly think that even with their psychopathic natures, that Alex Jones or Tucker Carlson or Ted Cruz etc are living happy lives? These men have PRIDE AND VANITY which makes them sensitive despite what they may have you believe and I will bet every penny I have, they ABSOLUTELY KNOW what people actually think of them! When you get into bed with vipers, you had better be on your toes 24/7! Ask Matt Gaetz! 

You will never win if you take a knife to a gun fight! 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Hospice.

Sweeping generalizations are the refuge of a lazy mind.

5
Up Vote Up Vote ×

You should know! 

Trump convinced you guys that he saw a unicorn (he won the election) and you gave him over $64 million dollars to fight it despite how many cases he lost and NOW based on the UNICORN SIGHTING republicans are introducing laws to capture that Fake Unicorn and discredit anyone who doubts that he saw the Unicorn. 

That kind of intelligence is undoubtedly classified as refuge, especially when it comes from such a sweeping generalization as the sighting of the fabled Unicorn! 

I suggest that the Loch Ness monster will soon be making an appearance! 

And if you want to know how intelligent people function, just look at what Biden did to Russia with those sanctions!!

Consider how he's crippled their source of financing? How many billions, Russian oligarchs will lose and Putin himself! 

That is chess playing of the highest order! Sweep that generalization! 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Hospice.
57 minutes ago, Curious1997 said:

You should know! 

Trump convinced you guys that he saw a unicorn (he won the election) and you gave him over $64 million dollars to fight it despite how many cases he lost and NOW based on the UNICORN SIGHTING republicans are introducing laws to capture that Fake Unicorn and discredit anyone who doubts that he saw the Unicorn. 

That kind of intelligence is undoubtedly classified as refuge, especially when it comes from such a sweeping generalization as the sighting of the fabled Unicorn! 

I suggest that the Loch Ness monster will soon be making an appearance! 

And if you want to know how intelligent people function, just look at what Biden did to Russia with those sanctions!!

Consider how he's crippled their source of financing? How many billions, Russian oligarchs will lose and Putin himself! 

That is chess playing of the highest order! Sweep that generalization! 

Most of the time your posts make me wonder if I’m accidentally on Gab or SafeChat. Same mindless rhetoric trying to pass as rational argument. The final chapter of Animal Farm springs immediately to mind. Oh, well ... welcome to my ignore list. I’m done.

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
1 hour ago, heron said:

Most of the time your posts make me wonder if I’m accidentally on Gab or SafeChat. Same mindless rhetoric trying to pass as rational argument. The final chapter of Animal Farm springs immediately to mind. Oh, well ... welcome to my ignore list. I’m done.

Finally you understand how we feel about you! 

Haven't got a clue what Gab or Safechat is but I will look it up. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ED, ICU, MS/MT, PCU, CM, House Sup, Frontline mgr.
9 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

If everyone breaks the rules then we have lost the quest for a more perfect union. 

If you are talking about my post, I am not advocating for breaking rules.  I am advocating for fighting hard against Trumpism.

8 hours ago, heron said:

 

Re the political system, I never argued that it was fair and balanced or that we should “play nice”. More like play honestly.

It is honest to expand the Supreme Court.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Hospice.
3 hours ago, SummerGarden said:

 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×

Good article on Trump's grifters. . They have all got together because no one else will have them and they are fleecing the republicans. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Hospice.
3 hours ago, SummerGarden said:

If you are talking about my post, I am not advocating for breaking rules.  I am advocating for fighting hard against Trumpism.

It is honest to expand the Supreme Court.

Perhaps. I question whether it’s smart.

ETA: to continue my thought now that I’m home:

I get the appeal of packing the court. It might even accomplish what we want, if only for a minute. But let’s think about the long term consequences of possibly rendering the Supreme Court irrelevant, as Justice Breyer warns might happen? Do we really want the nation’s last word on constitutional rule to become just another political sinecure, parroting whatever the current big dogs want to hear? 

One of the roots of #45’s rage over the election is that “his” Supreme Court betrayed him and refused to give him what he wanted. It was the judiciary that ultimately held the line against his attempted coup. One of the trumpists’ most cherished goals is to weaken or distort the rule of law. Do we really want to finish the job for them?

Before I get behind enlarging the Supreme Court, I want to consider also the idea of reforming the whole process of elevation, including an investigation into the shenanigans around the two most recent appointments. Impeachment sounds promising. Term limits, maybe? Certainly establishing solid, legislatively binding qualifications for appointment - and I’m not talking about dictating a specific judicial philosophy, either (which I think is a silent part of the agenda for expansion).

What I can’t get behind is messing with one of the bedrock safeguards of our freedom based on emotional backlash, silent agendas and knee-jerk oppositional-defiant urges to make the bastids pay.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment