Jump to content

US Politics: Supreme Courting to insanity.


Recommended Posts

What is incredibly frustrating about the Democrats (particularly the old guard of Biden, Pelosi and Schumer) is not that they aren't fighting for very liberal causes but that they don't seem to be fighting at all.  Roe v Wade gets overturned and the response is Pelosi reading a poem and requests for donations.  Do Something.  You had over a month's warning that this was coming, and yet the Democrats still had no plan to make abortions easier or what needs to be done to bring these rights back. 

Republicans are waging an all out assault on American democracy and way of life, and if the response is giving a measured, carefully worded speech, then we are all fucked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JGP said:

Exceptions to anger and frustration are solidarity, yo.

Not when it's directed at fellow posters, many of which, ya know, are women too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

What a very odd counterpoint. No one mentioned or even hinted at the problem being too progressive or championing progressive causes.

The people screaming for young blood are in the main the young(ish), very liberal, highly educated people... who are precisely like the people that are pushing messaging and strategy that turns off the mainstream electorate. They want to do away with the "old ways" when analytical polling shows that for the most part the electorate is just fine with the "old ways"

Protest! Protesting is good! Organize! Also good! These are the wisdom of the ancients, too! But this bullshit about war time presidents and coups and killing fascists is histrionics. Every one of these outbursts is just evidence of a person living in a bubble of ideological confirmation.

 

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

The people screaming for young blood are in the main the young(ish), very liberal, highly educated people... who are precisely like the people that are pushing messaging and strategy that turns off the mainstream electorate. They want to do away with the "old ways" when analytical polling shows that for the most part the electorate is just fine with the "old ways"

Protest! Protesting is good! Organize! Also good! These are the wisdom of the ancients, too! But this bullshit about war time presidents and coups and killing fascists is histrionics. Every one of these outbursts is just evidence of a person living in a bubble of ideological confirmation.

The rhetoric of Revolution is always in vogue, unfortunately. "Radical" on the right means potentially dangerous, while "radical" on the left just means unrealistically idealistic, closed to compromise or disagreement, and ultimately ineffectual.

I wish more people followed Richard Rorty (and Mark Lilla after him). Maybe we could actually grab power for meaningful change.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Not when it's directed at fellow posters, many of which, ya know, are women too.

Sure. Point remains.

Regardless, I got no beef with BB haranguing a generalized and perceived sentiment. Let women speak for themselves on that one, I think-- unless it violates board rules. Seems fair.   

The Board and many posters frequenting the Ukraine threads don't even know to be glad how often I restrain myself in there. But I am me. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ran said:

Protest! Protesting is good! Organize! Also good! These are the wisdom of the ancients, too! But this bullshit about war time presidents and coups and killing fascists is histrionics. Every one of these outbursts is just evidence of a person living in a bubble of ideological confirmation.

Ran, I have heard these very things from Dems for years.  I was told that the GOP would never kill Roe because the GOP would lose its biggest funding tactic of its base.   Talking about new blood isn't talking about young junior staffers.  It's about younger politicians, like Stacey Abrams and maybe Beto and a few others.  

There are many activists that have gone out and signed up women to run for office along the full spectrum of politics and other activists doing other things we don't talk about here.  They are out there, they are doing something, but we need more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

The people screaming for young blood are in the main the young(ish), very liberal, highly educated people... who are precisely like the people that are pushing messaging and strategy that turns off the mainstream electorate. They want to do away with the "old ways" when analytical polling shows that for the most part the electorate is just fine with the "old ways"

Protest! Protesting is good! Organize! Also good! These are the wisdom of the ancients, too! But this bullshit about war time presidents and coups and killing fascists is histrionics. Every one of these outbursts is just evidence of a person living in a bubble of ideological confirmation.

 

I don't think this is an accurate summation of the previous posters.

Specifically, the point repeatedly is that going for electoral solutions is not sufficient any more. And the wisdom of the ancient crowd - Biden, Pelosi, Schumer - are pushing to vote harder as the only solution they are offering.

This has nothing to do with increasing turnout of electorate, which is why I find your response so baffling. This is wanting officials to actually do things and get creative and actually fight instead of talking about how their hands are tied - or try to find common cause. If anything I would interpret it as a response against progressives because the goal is to do something, not something perfect. 

So do something with manchin. Do EOs even if some may fail. Stop promoting anti-abortion dems for seats. Get a more aggressive AG. Push at the norms the same way Republicans do. 

But stop considering this as a normal part of politics and stop treating the rules as applying only to your side when the other side doesn't give two shits about them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Ran, I have heard these very things from Dems for years.  I was told that the GOP would never kill Roe because the GOP would lose its biggest funding tactic of its base.   Talking about new blood isn't talking about young junior staffers.  It's about younger politicians, like Stacey Abrams and maybe Beto and a few others.  

Exactly. I'm not saying hand the party over to people in their 20s and the 30s. But is it too much to ask for someone in their 50s? When looking a Dem leaders Harris is the only one that's younger than 60, and the most important ones are in their 70s and 80s. Schumer is the spring chicken of the bunch at 71. 

If you aren't convinced that Democrats need to get younger I'd encourage you to watch hours of committee hearings on tech issues. It's painful to watch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How Covid Changed Politics

https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-political-scene/the-political-strategy-of-ron-desantiss-dont-say-gay-bill

Quote

 

.... Both parties right now are trying to answer the question of how fundamentally covid has changed politics. “From 2008 to 2020, elections were decided on the question of fairness—Obama ’08, Obama ’12, and Trump ’16 were all premised on the idea that someone else was getting too much, and you were getting too little, and it was unfair,” Danny Franklin, a partner at the Democratic strategy firm Bully Pulpit Interactive and a pollster for both Obama campaigns, told me. But the pandemic and the crises that followed (war, inflation, energy pressures) were not really about fairness but an amorphous sense of chaos. “People are looking for some control over their lives—in focus groups, in polls, once you start looking for that you see it everywhere,” Franklin said.

Both parties had shifted, in his view. Biden had sought to reassure Americans that the government, guided by experts, could reassert its control over events, from the pandemic to the crisis in energy supply. Republicans, meanwhile, had focussed on assuring voters that they would deliver control over a personal sphere of influence: schools that would teach what you wanted them to teach, a government that would make it easier, not harder, to get your hands on a gun. A moral panic about gender identity might seem anachronistic, but it served a very current political need. Franklin said, “It’s a way for Republicans to tell people that they can have back control of their lives.”

At first, these curricular concerns centered around race, and the teaching of critical race theory became a defining issue in the Virginia gubernatorial election, won last November by the Republican Glenn Youngkin. Rufo had been a central figure in that fight, but as he watched the conflicts in local districts unfold he came to think that, for the conservative base, the pull of racial issues paled in comparison to those that invoked gender. “Put yourself in the shoes of an average parent,” Rufo told me. “You’re looking at critical race theory and thinking, The maximum damage that can be done is that my child will be taught that America is a racist country. Perhaps if it’s a white family, our skin color will be called into question as some sort of marker of oppression. But really it’s limited to an intellectual plane. There’s a ceiling on it.” With gender, he went on, there was “essentially no ceiling”—the emotional reaction was “much more visceral and deep-seated.” 

Rufo recounted a story that he said he’d heard from a mother on the Upper East Side, who told him that her daughter was transitioning, with the help of an online community, and felt that this community “had essentially taken her away from me.” The mother, he said, told him that she knew half a dozen other Upper East Side parents with similar stories. “It’s not just that we’re going to teach your child that the country is evil,” he went on. “It’s really the fear—and I think the legitimate fear—that my child will essentially be recruited into a new identity.”

People who identify as trans are growing in number and visibility: in 2019, the C.D.C. found that nearly two per cent of high-school students identified as transgender. The political debates over whether trans high-school athletes should compete according to the sex they were assigned at birth or according to their gender identity arise naturally from that increased visibility, and conservative media has aggressively amplified those cases. But the law in Florida and the rhetoric accompanying it make more ambitious claims: that school staff are at least partly responsible for these changes and that trans people have—as Rufo put it—been “recruited into a new identity.” (This is an especially insidious allegation to make, in that it implies that trans people’s gender identity should not necessarily be understood as reflective of their own volition.) The idea that school counsellors are responsible for that recruitment is what connects the increase in trans visibility to the preëxisting conservative campaign for control of schools. I found a few cases in which parents alleged in lawsuits that school staff had held conversations with their children about transitioning without informing them—but nothing at all widespread. I asked Roberts, the Heritage Foundation president, about whether there was reason to believe that such “recruitment” was happening. “I think you ask the right question, the prevalence question,” Roberts said, adding that he would disagree with me “with a smile.” He went on, “It’s not on the verge of being undocumented from the perception of eighty per cent of Americans, even if they haven’t seen it firsthand at their own child’s swim meet.”

Of course, we were talking about somewhat different things. I had expressed doubt that teen-agers were really “recruited” into a new gender identity, and Roberts was talking about the conservative political reaction to activism on behalf of trans youth. Parents’ perceptions, Roberts went on, are shaped by events such as those in last fall’s session of the Texas legislature, when pro-trans-rights groups organized protests and testimony in opposition to a bill requiring student athletes to compete in alignment with the gender on their birth certificate. “In Texas of all places, this agenda—and I’m putting this as delicately as I can—of advocating for gender ideology, of allowing young men to compete in women’s sports has been pushed by the other side, by several dozen—if not a few hundred—activists who have showed up to testify in the Texas legislature.” ....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JGP said:

Regardless, I got no beef with BB haranguing a generalized and perceived sentiment.

I do when that "generalized sentiment" is (very aggressively) admonishing fellow posters simply for discussing yesterday's hearings - which obviously is the predominant news in US politics right now - with her main point being we all somehow "don't get it."  I think you making this into a "understanding women's frustration" thing is very cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well well. I have no sympathy for Gorsuch. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-expands-state-power-over-tribes-win-oklahoma-2022-06-29/

Quote

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday dramatically increased the power of states over Native American tribes and undercut its own 2020 ruling that had expanded tribal authority in Oklahoma, handing a victory to Republican officials in that state.

...

"To be clear, the court today holds that Indian country within a state's territory is part of a state, not separate from a state," Kavanaugh wrote in a decision that scholars of Native American law said was a major departure from longstanding precedent.

Gorsuch's dissent is so rich.

Quote

Writing in dissent, Gorsuch called Wednesday's ruling a "grim result for different tribes in different states," but said its impact could still be limited by individual treaties and laws passed by Congress.

"One can only hope the political branches and future courts will do their duty to honor this nation's promises even as we have failed today to do our own," Gorsuch added.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I object to talking about the days news because the days news is fucking bullshit. 

Spoiler alert! They did it!

Spoiler alert 2! They're gonna get away with it! 

What the hell are we doing wasting our time with this nonsense? We don't need hearings, we needed (past tense, because the time has passed) action. 

Are you fucking kidding me with acting like this -news of the day- is worth an ounce of anyone's attention? Yo, it's about donations playa. That's it. They didn't do anything for 18 months because they know it doesn't matter. They just wanted to get

THE Jan 6th COMMITTEE Live in PRIME TIME

to increase reactionary donations. Not to solve the problem, they literally never even tried that. This is a waste of time. It's dems putting together an Alex Smith special of a 12 play 9 minute FG drive when down by ten in the fourth quarter. We ain't getting the ball back, if you've been paying attention

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Ran, I have heard these very things from Dems for years.  I was told that the GOP would never kill Roe because the GOP would lose its biggest funding tactic of its base. 

I don't know who you listened to, but the Democratic party is not a monolith, and there are all sorts of attempts to read the tea leaves. I've been reading articles about Roe v. Wade being in danger from GWB's election and onward, and no doubt they existed earlier before I really paid attention to politics.  I am sure there are people who made that cynical argument, pretty sure I've heard it, but there were also people who made what was the right argument, and many of them were practiced hands at politics.

32 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Talking about new blood isn't talking about young junior staffers.  It's about younger politicians, like Stacey Abrams and maybe Beto and a few others.  

They aren't taking part in the debates in Congress and the Senate because they've lost elections and so are not elected politicians at this time.

That said, sure, if Beto and Abrams win their elections, that's great. But they aren't losing because of experienced politicians (well, they are, but on the other side). Politics is hard, and even center-leftist young politicians (as, IMO, Beto and Abrams are)  have a challenge before them. But then, most non-incumbents have a challenge ahead of them, regardless of political valence. That's politics.

22 minutes ago, LongRider said:

There are many activists that have gone out and signed up women to run for office along the full spectrum of politics and other activists doing other things we don't talk about here.  They are out there, they are doing something, but we need more.

Absolutely true. Getting people to run who are not wonks who have been in the political trenches, but people like, say, Raphael Warnock, Mark Kelly, et. al. to run, that seems to be wise. 

The truth is that the majority of the electorate likes to hear about bipartisanship. They like to hear about crossing the aisle, and they respect politicians more who make these efforts. It makes them feel like there'll be a clear and broad-based support for their own policy preferences. It makes them believe politicians are more moderate, and the majority of the electorate says that's good. So the idea that the new young turks replacing the old guard are going to get anywhere by getting rid of bipartisanship efforts? It's hogwash. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, DMC said:

 I think you making this into a "understanding women's frustration" thing is very cheap.

Oh really. 

I don't just frequent this board, and it's everywhere else. It's probably even presumptuous for me to speak up in defense [so I'll stop beyond this] but dude, you should over that

 

get* over, even

Edited by JGP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ran said:

The people screaming for young blood are in the main the young(ish), very liberal, highly educated people... who are precisely like the people that are pushing messaging and strategy that turns off the mainstream electorate. They want to do away with the "old ways" when analytical polling shows that for the most part the electorate is just fine with the "old ways"

Protest! Protesting is good! Organize! Also good! These are the wisdom of the ancients, too! But this bullshit about war time presidents and coups and killing fascists is histrionics. Every one of these outbursts is just evidence of a person living in a bubble of ideological confirmation.

Amen. Thank you for this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If you aren't convinced that Democrats need to get younger I'd encourage you to watch hours of committee hearings on tech issues. It's painful to watch. 

It reminds me of a recent Millennial/Gen-Z vs Gen X piss up and a Millennial was all, 'Yeah, I'm going to take notes from every Gen-X that can't access/edit/sign a PDF properly.' lol  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It is worth noting that one of the men has already been accused of lying on Trump’s behalf and both had a reputation of working as Trump’s enablers during his presidency. Indeed, day two reports suggest that the purported denials are perhaps more semantic than substantive, denying that the President “assaulted” the lead Secret Service agent as opposed to denying that there was an irate confrontation in the limousine in which the President demanded to be taking to the Capitol."

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/talk-on-background-is-cheap

Quote

 

.... Earlier this month, Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, made a big show of her willingness and desire to march right up to Capitol Hill and clear her good name before the Jan. 6th investigation committee. Yesterday, her lawyer said the committee just turns out to be too biased. So she won’t be testifying after all.

Two White House security officials who allegedly scuffled with the President in the presidential limousine are now denying through intermediaries what Cassidy Hutchinson said under oath in yesterday’s hearing. But Ginni Thomas’s switcheroo is a good reminder that talk — or rather claims through intermediaries — is cheap. People who claim they are just champing at the bit to testify usually end up refusing to testify.

Indeed, it’s fair to question the journalistic decisions behind some of these reports. Most of us had never heard of Cassidy Hutchinson until a few days ago. Her claims definitely deserve scrutiny. But testimony under oath is the price of entry to this conversation. Indeed, the two men in question, Tony Ornato and Bobby Engel, have been able to get denials into print without even agreeing to speak on the record. In other words, they’ve refused to call up reporters and say, “I never said what she claims and the incident did not happen.” They have been able to get reporters to report that people ‘familiar with their thinking’ say they will deny it. I assure you: They could get their on-the-record quotes into print at the drop of a hat. All it takes is a phone call.

It is worth noting that one of the men has already been accused of lying on Trump’s behalf and both had a reputation of working as Trump’s enablers during his presidency. Indeed, day two reports suggest that the purported denials are perhaps more semantic than substantive, denying that the President “assaulted” the lead Secret Service agent as opposed to denying that there was an irate confrontation in the limousine in which the President demanded to be taking to the Capitol. ....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Ran said:

The truth is that the majority of the electorate likes to hear about bipartisanship. They like to hear about crossing the aisle, and they respect politicians more who make these efforts. It makes them feel like there'll be a clear and broad-based support for their own policy preferences. It makes them believe politicians are more moderate, and the majority of the electorate says that's good. So the idea that the new young turks replacing the old guard are going to get anywhere by getting rid of bipartisanship efforts? It's hogwash

In my experience only Dem's discuss bipartinship really.  That's just a cynical talking point for Republicans and doesn't really mean anything to me anyway.  I have protested, knocked on doors, made phone calls, registered voters, participated in a state caucus and always vote. 

I have also seen lots of shit from the Repubs: hold the vote open longer on the Senate floor than the usual time to get more R votes.  Supreme Court seats stolen, vocal disrespect on the Senate floor towards Obama, and it just goes on and on.  Dems have been doing plenty and I swear the "Dem's don't do enough" does not help.  The R's are years ahead of us and enough of them don't seem to give a shit about ethics or obeying laws for their politicians.

Quote

Absolutely true. Getting people to run who are not wonks who have been in the political trenches, but people like, say, Raphael Warnock, Mark Kelly, et. al. to run, that seems to be wise. 

 That's not what I really meant though, I meant the activists who want to Dems to, as we say, run for dogcatcher, so folks can learn the political ropes from the ground up.  So this is actually happening because Dems are finally figuring out that just voting for the Prez every four years is a waste of time.  The entire political landscape needs to become real for Dems.  The prez won't attend the school board meeting, but it would help if more Dems would.

 

Edited by LongRider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

This is a waste of time. It's dems putting together an Alex Smith special of a 12 play 9 minute FG drive when down by ten in the fourth quarter. We ain't getting the ball back, if you've been paying attention

The last may be true, but the the prior part is not.  This is the most significant thing the Dems have done since the Age of Chaos* began to hit the fan of public attention. Like the two impeachments, though they didn't get through the reich dominated senate, they are on the record, which is deeply important on at least the levels of the self-regard of the object and his supporters.  If it wasn't Andrew Jackson wouldn't have been so assiduous to get his impeachment expunged from the historic record of government.

These hearings seem to be having a whole lot more effect on public perception than the impeachments ever did.  And ya, just coz I am an historian, one whose specialty is the worst of the nation's history, slavery, that these investigations and the findings are being aired in public hearings, matters.  At least they do if there a future for the country and the globe.  I personally don't feel hopeful about the future, as I've been wrong about things before.  For instance as a young person I was sure the American population would get behind all the save the environment actions.  Also I am a bred in the bone pessimist. 

* The chaos demon's effect is so reflected in the utter chaos of state and federal laws about everything to do with women's reproductive health since Alito unleashed the catastrophe full throttle.

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...