Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined


About sologdin

  • Birthday 10/25/1917

Profile Information

  • Interests
    smashing the ruling class, hanging leaders from lampposts, nuisant attracting, gardening

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

sologdin's Achievements

Council Member

Council Member (8/8)

  1. Biden may as well go into benevolent dictator mode. this is the reason that trump's attorneys argue in obvious bad faith. they have to know that if their argument prevails, then the current president can just go full stalin. some qanonist will spot that problem and then realize further that trump is just a tool of the deep state to bring about socialism.
  2. when he (inevitably) refuses to pay? the law has tools to handle non-responsive judgment debtors. the bankruptcy trustee can undo fraudulent conveyances, for instance. the good thing for trump's judgment creditors is that the financial information is already worked over a bit in the various cases and through the accountant disclosures.
  3. When is political violence ok? I humbly submit this explanation: definitely lower brow than the rationales examined in camus' rebel, derrida's force of law, or agamben's state of exception. right wing politics leaning more toward our potential for chimp-like social dynamics, while left wing politics leans more toward our Bonobo-like dynamics as regards conflict resolution, chimps beat the fuck out of each other whereas bonobos have sex with their adversaries? i get the rightwing chimp thing, but lefties have had a fairly poor showing historically, too.
  4. the notion that the system as it exists is fundamentally broken seems like there's a smooth functionality resulting inexorably from founding documents and statutes enacted under same, sorting benefits and burdens in predictable ways. less broken, i.e., than operating precisely as intended. revising it doesn't require extraparliamentary measures. but if we're at that point that the fascists are organizing against mere revision, and we haven't even gotten to the despotic inroads on the right to property yet, then it's plain that mark fisher remains correct in how it's easier, for some, to envision the end of the world than the end of capitalism.
  5. At risk of being overly optimistic, I think Biden write-in is a very positive sign. a bit. it's difficult to draw inferences from the numbers. write-in biden voting looks good for him, but then again the number of votes counted in the dem primary are 105K, whereas the repubs had 300K voters in theirs. uh oh? (the easy explanation is that no one cared in a primary that doesn't count; cf. 2020 election numbers, 790K for president.) the contrary and very attenuated inference is that NH's semi-closed primary allows non-party members, who want the current president to remain in office, to vote for the former president in the primary so as to set him up as the weaker candidate for the general.
  6. t doesn't seem like the positive sentiments of investors are shared by the vast majority of the population. it does mince the trump cultist contention that biden's policies are bad for investors, though i understand the thesis now is that increasing values for securities simply "makes rich people richer," a bad thing when it happens under an opponent, as described here. standard right populism, right out of lowenthal: somehow the communists in the adminstration are simultaneously plutocrats.
  7. What I dont understand is why Democratic strategists go through the historical archives to see how to tackle these fascist tactics. what is truly amazing is that the tactics have been well understood for many decades. at the level of street demagoguery, leo lowenthal's prophets of deceit works through the basic rhetorical technique from the early 20th century. (my thorough comments here.) adorni's jargon of authenticity handles the highbrow philosophy. (comments.) neumann's behemoth tracks the actual practice of right populism after its elevation. (my notes.) and to round out the frankfurt tour of fascism, maybe horkheimer's eclipse of reason to really tie the room together. (notes.) the truly ambitious might take on adorno's authoritarian personality, a study of the psychological type that enlists in rightwing populism.
  8. Which is why we need all the votes we can get, people! more a matter of triage. those domiciled in irredeemable shithole states might feel at liberty to vote in accordance with pure principle, whereas the recommendation to voters in plausibly contestable states would be to cleave to tactical considerations.
  9. He's somehow managed to maintain his manic energy but learned how to stick to talking points and prescribed attitudes the hypothesis for falsification is therefore whether acting like a regular candidate cools the fervor of magaphiliac expression. my suspicion is that the magaphiliac arises from abject lumpenization and has adopted facile identity politics on the way out. say what you want about the tenets of magaphilia, at least it's an ethos?
  10. these are the sort of articles that flatter my prejudices. the top ten most unhealthy states, it argues, are shithole states, i.e., run by the rightwing: meanwhile, the top ten most healthy are predictably more progressive, except for utah, the relative health of which might be attributable to clean LDS living. good on them: the question accordingly becomes whether rightwing policy causes bad health outcomes generally or that bad health exists for other reasons and leads inexorably to a fascistic electorate.
  11. a giant red cape being waived in front of him no doubt. the reading that the presidency is not an 'office' is crazier than a shithouse rat. textualists such as the justice gros fromage should appreciate art. II sec. 1: emphasis added. i'm sure there's a clever way to explain it away. or maybe a not so clever one. power has never required wit. i'm handling a case that involves a mariner working for the US. even though the FECA excludes vessel crew from its scope, the supreme court has a case that says the FECA is a mariner's exclusive remedy. so plenty of stupid to go around.
  12. Don't know whether or not the CO supreme court is Dems or not all seven have been appointed by democratic governors, but the judges themselves are non-partisan on paper. Are state SC decisions subject to being overturned by SCOTUS or is that the end of the matter as far as Trump's ability to be on the Colorado ballot? they are generally, but a pure question of state law is not something normally within its interest. the question becomes whether this case involves a pure question of state law or not. my reading of the opinion this morning and the dissents is that each is focused on the state election code, with some discussion of the 14th amendment and procedural due process. SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of Trump. what do you think the legal, as opposed to political, basis of reversal would be? politically, i could see several conservative justices think that it's time to shut the fucking circus down. Will that clause have any on the affect the ruling being sent to the SC? that language is discussed in the colorado opinion. one implication to draw from it is that the disqualification clause is self-executing. the section permits congress to remove the disqualification, but it does not require the judiciary to do anything like 'pass it back to congress.' there is no such thing as 'passing back to congress.' this is not a hot potato or a marihuana pipe. Is that reasonable? Who the fuck knows? it is completely unreasonable. the colorado opinion trashes the notion that the presidency is not an office. So does it affect other states findings? because the colorado opinion is focused on its own election code, the supreme court could decline to take the case and just let the states sort it out individually. that would be consistent with the abortion decision. or it could take the case and say that colorado got its election code right or wrong. or they could also take the case and make a determination on the meaning of the section, one way or the other, which would likely filter down universally.
  13. the terribleness rightly or wrongly will be attached wrongly, of course, unless the terrible arises out of an intrinsic characteristic rather than incidental deviations from principle. no one is advocating for anthropophagist rights, but that's what rightwing panic implies.
  14. the st. ronnie puppet in the original 'land of confusion' video highlights the ligottian complication.
  15. should be shocking, but sadly it isn't. this touches on my pet internal leftwing grievance: on what warrant rests the conclusion that one need not educate those whose circumstances have prevented them from understanding a phenomenon claimed to be rooted in irreducible experience? whence comes the corollary entitlement that one need not argue and persuade as part of a demand. You can be on the correct side of an issue and still take it too far. that can be a tactical question, or a moral one. on the one hand, it makes sense to listen to the objections and correct course. on the other hand, i kinda regard DQSH as fairly tame. a consistent moral doctrine might accordingly require us to take it farther. clothing, in itself, as long as one has enough of it, is a trifle--the picayune question of how much fabric cut in which ways covering which anatomical parcels is a question of parity products, fungible in objective terms, varying through market mechanism with high cross elasticity. if subjective import is attributed to some and not others on the basis of gender ideology, it merely means that it is a serious trifle, fictions piled on top of other fictions, a cascade of hyperreal interactions--but a trifle nevertheless. it is trifling because the issue that has been created is entirely one-sided; the conservative end of the debate wholly lacks merit and pursues the matter frivolously as a display of animus. they may believe that sex exists, but that's simply because it says so in genesis 1:27. the offer to extend their unsupported and unsupportable beliefs over the entire world is respectfully declined. as reductio ad absurdum of their objection to DQSH, we note that it's probably child abuse to extend these woeful beliefs over t their own children. i envision therefore a child welfare agency in the atheist future that dispossesses parents of their children for juvenile infliction of religious belief.
  • Create New...