US Politics: Rural Southernification… (thanks Zorral)

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Thank you, you too!  We were fine (I was upstate with the kids - I tried to go in on Thursday like an idiot but turned around in Mamaroneck for obvious reasons).  Our basement got a little wet, but it has drains and a sump pump so all good (though the dehumidifier is doing some extra work right now).  How are you all?  I hope good?  More on topic, was glad to see that our new governor got her butt down to Queens right away.  Giving her the benefit of the doubt for the time being….

We too came through fine with nothing but lack of hot water Thursday AM, but restored by 11 AM.  We were among the fortunate.  It's horrific, how many are not.  Still, considering where we are, it's not if, but when, our number comes up too, with the ever increasing number and ever increasing size of these storms.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

A form of Parliamentary System.

Isn’t that your preferred method?

Yes

[A True Kaniggit]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yes

Yeah. It would be nice.

[Ivan Tsarevich]

15 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How would “speaking to their heart” have helped in this circumstance?

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2360583239041/a-school-ordered-a-student-to-quarantine-his-dad-and-2-men-confronted-the-principal-with-zip-ties-official-says

Don't know, really. I advocated dialogue and common-humanity approach. Will it work every time, even if tried? Of course not. But I don't think that's a reason to just dismiss it.

14 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

If this method is so effective, why isn't TG using it to persuade us?  If you're calling for civility, jumping into a discussion to call someone annoying seems counter productive.

I'm not calling for "civility", that may be your own strawman/perception/whatever. Biden may have said that in his address, but I think I may not have. What I advocate is dialogue and common-humanity approach where approriate. Would civility help with that? Perhaps.

And I have made my appeal to you. I think common-humanity approach might be a choice to consider for those who appreciate unity and compassion. Are those among your values? Would you be willing to extend them towards the outgroup, within reason?

11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I can only speak for myself but I don’t make it a point to tone police conservatives whilst saying I’m doing so out of concern that they’re tone isn’t effective in converting liberals—and then accuse them of probably being dishonest and not worth engaging with.

I don't think I'm tone policing you.

11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I was explaining I’m not angry with the packaging of some messaging from the right. The substance—not the aesthetic—is the real problem.

Ok.

11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The way you’ve proposed to go about it is not optimal beyond individual level.

It’d be a waste of time to try to convert 10 Republican senators to do things that would protect US democracy than it is to convert the few moderate holdouts within the party.

I think common-enemy identity politics may only exacerbate problem in the larger scale of things, meaning that they divide the society even further.

11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Dialogue can be important. But it’s important realize it’s limits when the core interest and ambitions of different groups limits the fruitfulness of that.

Especially there’s no potential trade-off for it.

The Democratic Party wants to be the ones in power in a liberal democracy.

The Republican Party is making strides towards ending democracy. the majority of the population does not like them and Their power rests in appeal to a shrinking, loud, angry minority with authoritarian inclinations. They know this.

Nancy Pelosi appealing to the majore Greene whose gotten no hard condemnation from her party for openly advocating the murder of her colleagues, will be a waste of time especially since she and the Democratic Party doesn’t need a single Republican vote to pass their agenda if they unified around ending the filibuster and granting statehood to a couple US territories.

And that's exactly the sort of thing you could say to appeal to conservatives who may have something resembling principles.

11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Sure, that’s why it can be important to not play their games.

Talking to them even more appealing their sense of decency will not get them to alter the republicans  anti-democratic streak. 
They were literally almost killed by a violent mob due to their lies about the election.

If that sort of situation isn’t emotionally compromising enough to maybe get more than 15 of them to realize their folly nothing will.

I'm not asking you to play Republican games any more than other way around. But perhaps try talking sometimes amidst all the war horns. If you would.

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

And that's exactly the sort of thing you could say to appeal to conservatives who may have something resembling principles.

The conservatives who could be appealed  to have politically nullified within the America in high office.

The conservative base has largely supported the anti-democratic trends.

It’d be nice if the concept of liberal democracy was still respected by the majority Republican Party. 
That  emotional appeals like cops describing their terrror at being nearly over ran by a anti-democratic mob was effective.

3 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

I think common-enemy identity politics may only exacerbate problem in the larger scale of things, meaning that they divide the society even further.

And I think it need be acknowledged that that sometimes, no you’re not going to make much progress by appealing to your enemies’ heart and that it is a waste of time and resources to do so. 

At certain point implying that they’re approval on certain matters is integral may simply impede your agenda.

Dialogue between competing factions should be done with the idea something tangible could be gained.

3 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

I'm not asking you to play Republican games any more than other way around. But perhaps try talking sometimes amidst all the war horns. If you would.

Again the democrats do not republican support for much of their agenda if they unified.

The few moderates who’ve adopted a more empathic, bipartisanship approach to republicans, have failed to recognize what the party’s ambitions intel. The end of the Democracy to which they hold political power in.

Its not hyperbolic; multiple gop senatores and Trump himself have explicitly derided the concept of Democracy as repugnant with no major backlash from their party.

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

And I have made my appeal to you. I think common-humanity approach might be a choice to consider for those who appreciate unity and compassion. Are those among your values? Would you be willing to extend them towards the outgroup, within reason?

Vaguely this seems uncontroversial if one doesn’t get into the positions in question as well what compassion within reason entails.

Like asking is it good to give to charity to help a cause really important to millions of people.

The person being asked is pressured to say yes even if the charity in question is for trying to bankroll a politician who says they’d work to end liberal democracy if elected.

 hostility towards certain ideas or behaviors could effectively clamp down on certain ideas or behaviors. 

3 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

don't think I'm tone policing you.

But kinda yeah. If liberals gave a more empathic laced rhetoric when speaking to conservatives, maybe unity could be obtained.
 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 hours ago, DMC said:

Well, the WSJ editorial board may not be Trumpist, but let's be clear - the views they propagate are definitely still part of what's wrong with this country.

Sure, but there's a sliding scale of evil in play here. I can't gnash my teeth too much at them anymore even if their track record over the course of my adult life has been pretty terrible.
 

12 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Hopefully not.  And remember this case has not been heard on its merits yet.  The 5-4 holding is purely procedural.  The dissents are well considered and stinging as they should be.

Yes, this is just a technicality, but it still has serious real world impacts, and it lets us know that we have five unreasonable judges when it comes to a woman's right to choose. We knew it already, but now we've got the receipts. 

[HoodedCrow]

I thought the WSJ was purchased by Murdoch:(

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sure, but there's a sliding scale of evil in play here.

I'm not sure there is.  There's certainly a sliding scale of extremism between, say, the WSJ and Breitbart.  But who's actually more "evil" is a judgment I'm not comfortable making - the crazy fascistic uneducated xenophobes or the people that relied upon, exploited, enabled, and are responsible for the political emergence (or I suppose resurgence) of the crazy fascistic uneducated xenophobes?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

26 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Because there are still election laws in place that have deadlines for when candidates appear, Scot. It’s the fact they’re doing an end run around the law. 
 

Moderates have learned Republicans’ lessons well - if the rules say you don’t win, change the rules.

So, you believe in the two major parties acting as gatekeepers over who may and may not appear on ballots in General Elections?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yes, this is just a technicality, but it still has serious real world impacts, and it lets us know that we have five unreasonable judges when it comes to a woman's right to choose. We knew it already, but now we've got the receipts. 

If the five Judges you refer to are purely “unreasonable” why isn’t Trump President and why is homosexual marriage still legal in the United States?  This sucks and I disagree with the Majority Holding.  To assume they will gut “Casey” is unfounded.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I believe in not changing the rules after the fact because you lost.

Rules that are gatekeeping and deliberately set to favor keeping only major party candidates on General Election ballots?

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

To assume they will gut “Casey” is unfounded.

Well, that just isn't true.  It's pretty founded when 5 justices refused to intervene with a law that explicitly (and drastically) violates Casey in terms of a right to an abortion before the point of fetal viability.  Now, will those justices actually gut Casey?  That very much remains to be seen.  But this ruling certainly makes it appear very likely they'll either gut it or simply won't grant cert to a case that challenges these types of laws that effectively end the right to abortion in red states.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, that just isn't true.  It's pretty founded when 5 justices refused to intervene with a law that explicitly (and drastically) violates Casey in terms of a right to an abortion before the point of fetal viability.  Now, will those justices actually gut Casey?  That very much remains to be seen.  But this ruling certainly makes it appear very likely they'll either gut it or simply won't grant cert to a case that challenges these types of laws that effectively end the right to abortion in red states.

Injunctive relief is legally strange.  It is unusual for a court to grant injunctive relief even when there is cause.  This doesn’t preclude a lower court from taking action when the law is enforced.  

I absolutely admit, and the dissents point out, the majority is being cowardly.  when this case comes again and it is heard on the merits the five member majority will not have a procedural dodge.

Claiming this is the death of “Casey” is incredibly premature.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

I'm not calling for "civility", that may be your own strawman/perception/whatever. Biden may have said that in his address, but I think I may not have. What I advocate is dialogue and common-humanity approach where approriate. Would civility help with that? Perhaps.

Please apply this logic to a trans individual using the methods you've described when dealing with an out of touch transphobic individual on the right, which is basically most people on the right these days. 

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm not sure there is.  There's certainly a sliding scale of extremism between, say, the WSJ and Breitbart.  But who's actually more "evil" is a judgment I'm not comfortable making - the crazy fascistic uneducated xenophobes or the people that relied upon, exploited, enabled, and are responsible for the political emergence (or I suppose resurgence) of the crazy fascistic uneducated xenophobes?

It's a difficult question indeed and I've said before I'm not entirely certain what the answer is. I guess if I had to choose it would be the actor who knew they were trafficking in hate to make a buck while understanding what they were doing was evil. Tucker Carlson really blurs the lines between the two.

Unrelated, one of the small joys in life is listening to the radio (or in this case random play on YouTube) and hoping that a song comes on next and then it does.

 

23 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If the five Judges you refer to are purely “unreasonable” why isn’t Trump President and why is homosexual marriage still legal in the United States?  This sucks and I disagree with the Majority Holding.  To assume they will gut “Casey” is unfounded.

Let's drop "homosexual marriage" from your vernacular for starters. And the SC couldn't overturn the election without inviting it's own destruction. 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

when this case comes again and it is heard on the merits the five member majority will not have a procedural dodge.

Claiming this is the death of “Casey” is incredibly premature.

Again, who says SCOTUS will hear any case challenging the law on its merits?  They can continue to procedurally dodge via negative agenda control.  It's possible you're right and that one of the five would flip if a case arises on its merits.  But you're being incredibly naive if you think their refusal to step in immediately isn't a clear signal that it's very likely that bloc of justices will either gut Casey or permit red states to enact laws that effectively do so within their jurisdiction.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Please apply this logic to a trans individual using the methods you've described when dealing with an out of touch transphobic individual on the right, which is basically most people on the right these days. 

It's a difficult question indeed and I've said before I'm not entirely certain what the answer is. I guess if I had to choose it would be the actor who knew they were trafficking in hate to make a buck while understanding what they were doing was evil. Tucker Carlson really blurs the lines between the two.

Unrelated, one of the small joys in life is listening to the radio (or in this case random play on YouTube) and hoping that a song comes on next and then it does.

 

Let's drop "homosexual marriage" from your vernacular for starters. And the SC couldn't overturn the election without inviting it's own destruction. 

Marriage equality then.  If this court is so dead set in favor of the Trumpanista agenda why is marriage equality still the law of the land?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Again, who says SCOTUS will hear any case challenging the law on its merits?  They can continue to procedurally dodge via negative agenda control.  It's possible you're right and that one of the five would flip if a case arises on its merits.  But you're being incredibly naive if you think their refusal to step in immediately isn't a clear signal that it's very likely that bloc of justices will either gut Casey or permit red states to enact laws that effectively do so within their jurisdiction.

It’s not good.  That is a fact.  But Alito noting in his own dodge that there are serious Constitutional problems with the Texas law suggests to me that he knows he doesn’t have 7 justices willing to dodge (it only takes 4 for a case to be heard) much less a majority to uphold the law’s Constitutionality.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But Alito noting in his own dodge that there are serious Constitutional problems with the Texas law suggests to me that he knows he doesn’t have 7 justices willing to dodge (it only takes 4 for a case to be heard) much less a majority to uphold the law’s Constitutionality.

Again, it's a clear signal those five will gut Casey if a case is granted cert.  Which gives Roberts and the liberals little motivation to grant cert if they're just going to lose.  Especially Roberts, he's not going to want to take a case that makes him look that weak - and would hurt the legitimacy of the court which is clearly his overarching concern.  Also, it would only take 6 justices to block cert, not 7.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, it's a clear signal those five will gut Casey if a case is granted cert.  Which gives Roberts and the liberals little motivation to grant cert if they're just going to lose.  Especially Roberts, he's not going to want to take a case that makes him look that weak - and would hurt the legitimacy of the court which is clearly his overarching concern.  Also, it would only take 6 justices to block cert, not 7.

Actually, I think this particular law is probably toast, but it will be toast on grounds that have nothing to do with the the right of a woman’s choice, and the opinion will be an instruction manual as to what COULD work.