Jump to content

US Politics: Supreme Courting to insanity.


Recommended Posts

Polling is all well and good but it’s what actually happens that matters.

R’s might be bipartisan on a law that interests districts or donors, but major legislation, forget about it. 
 

Lately bipartisanship is seen in the J6C and why?  That old blood Pelosi wisely retained the right to approve  the R’s nominationed to the committee.
 

She said No to Jim Jordan and the other one, and picked two R’s who are taking their work on J6C seriously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ran said:

That would be because primaries may be slanted to the extremes. But they don't necessarily have the same level of success against their opponents after the primaries... and while I've heard of politicians who claim they won't be bipartisan when running who then end up being involved in bipartisan then realizing they have to be bipartisan, I've never really heard of the other side of it, running on bipartisanship and then turning into a firebrand.

This still doesn't indicate that more people actually vote for moderates or bipartisanship. It also indicates exactly why bipartisanship fails - because only 8% of the districts are competitive only 8% of districts are effectively decided by the general election. The rest are primaries, and in those bipartisanship is a negative.

So 8% of the time you might be right, but 92% of the time you're definitely wrong. 

10 minutes ago, Ran said:

Here is an interesting analysis of voting records showing that Democrats and Republicans alike are likelier to vote against their party if they are in competitive districts. It kind of shows that actual politicians recognize the value of bipartisanship for their re-elections. 

 

This seems to agree with @JGPabove, where republicans love when dems reach across the aisle but that isn't at all true the other way. And it doesn't show that bipartisanship is the reason for swapping because we don't see the results - for all we know the more moderate candidate lost and that voter swapped because the other person wasn't extreme enough for their liking.

In any case the position remains the same - bipartisanship may be stated as desired by people but it doesn't correspond to winning things or actual outcomes. I agree it is more to do with primaries than a lot of other things but it doesn't actually matter why, only that it isn't a big deal.

And if the difference is getting people who will do more to use power vs those who will stand by, chances are good that bit of bipartisanship won't matter a single bit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, straits said:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-expands-state-power-over-tribes-win-oklahoma-2022-06-29/

I didn't see this get linked earlier in the thread. But this is bad, right? Like settler-colonialism-level bad? Is SCOTUS just an inverted totalitarianism machine?

Horribad, as in settler_colonialism_alwayshasbeen_meme.gif

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Babblebauble said:

Z, you're an historian! This happens, man. Societies collapse backwards and we reading from the future sit there and go "why didn't somebody do something? Oh, well, that would never happen here right?" And we laugh and laugh and laugh at those stupid primitives and their unsettled times. 

I never said otherwise.  I've been saying for decades that it is happening here. I've done what I can -- other than picking up a gun (I can't see anyway, so of more danger to friends than enemies), been active, voted, protested. donated money -- particularly to young candidates like AOC -- for which even here I've been roundly criticized by the usual suspects -- I know damned well how nations collapse, and the ways they collapse, o let me count them.

But mostly I've been active in my own local neighborhood and community, so :dunno: since I haven't gone to prison, it doesn't count, right?

When you ask, "Zorral, what's the historical example of that? What's the historical lesson we can draw from such conditions on a 'Republic'? " my answer is what it always has been, even though nobody asked me the question.  I see 5th century Athens, here in the US I see 1860, I see the 1930's and 40's, and see far far far worse for the near future, due to climate change and technology.  And over population, of course (why I don't have kids myself).  I'm sure this doesn't make you any happier than before.  But that's what I've been saying for a long time right here, in various ways.

 

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Zorral said:

But mostly I've been active in my own local neighborhood and community, so :dunno: since I haven't gone to prison, it doesn't count, right?

We fight how we know, those who have fight in them.

It counts, Z. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I never said otherwise.  I've been saying for decades that it is happening here. I've done what I can -- other than picking up a gun (I can't see anyway, so of more danger to friends than enemies), been active, voted, protested. donated money -- particularly to young candidates like AOC -- for which even here I've been roundly criticized by the usual suspects -- I know damned well how nations collapse, and the ways they collapse, o let me count them.

But mostly I've been active in my own local neighborhood and community, so :dunno: since I haven't gone to prison, it doesn't count, right?

I'm not trying to say that. I don't even have a gun or nothing to wage any kind of war with. But the long peace is over. I feel like it needs saying. And saying loudly. Fascism is here. And the institutions have gone out their way not just to excuse them but to enable them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I've used the words fascism, totalitarianism, authoritarianism here constantly for years.

The thing is I'm not a political animal in any way, in the sense of politicians and voters.  What I am good at is helping people, with finding resources they need, hooking people together, and even making meals and giving food to people who don't have it, or the means to make meals.  I'm also really good at organizing paperwork and offices, writing press releases, and so on,  I'm also good at educating the young(er) about these matters -- if one gets them before being brainwashed into xtianity etc.  That's what I do.  It's all I can do, since I don't have the financial resources to set up whole orgs of my own.

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, straits said:

Might be that by "bipartisanship", some voters actually mean to say "you should come closer to my position; I'm not moving".

This tendency (which, yes, inherently increases with increased polarization) is not going to be resolved by changing the wording of the item.

39 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

That preference is also anecdotal, in that it does not appear to actually influence voting outcomes to any major degree on the republican party.

That's not what anecdotal means.  Americans express plenty of political attitudes that clearly do not influence their voting outcomes.  Doesn't make those attitudes anecdotal, just means party predominates voting outcomes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading TFA, it appears to be a deal in which McConnell agrees not to block other federal judicial appointments in the future, including other openings for federal judges. Which, if true, is big.

There seems to be this notion that McConnell breaks deals all the time, but as far as I know, he never or very rarely has. He's more moderate than the median Republican senator, he's known for his deal-making, and indeed he and Biden have worked out a number of deals going back to the Obama years and no doubt earlier. If Biden judges McConnell will stick to the deal, this is probably a net plus for the US, if not Kentucky... but remember, McConnell could simply have held up the appointment of that judge for a long time. So... yeah, it looks like good politics to me.

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Did someone hack your account?  

 

48 minutes ago, JGP said:

I've dragged Tywin about his political career before, but he seems to be in the right place now.

I've been critical of Dem leaders for a long time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Except McConnell a) lies all thr time and

Find a deal that he's broken. I've searched and can't find anything. Ideally a meat-and-potatoes deal that's about his home state, like this one.

3 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

b) doesn't have the power to block shit right now. 

From TFA:

Quote

but Tobias said the White House may have decided it was worth it after seeing how McConnell had recently blocked the potential nomination of two potential U.S. attorneys and sought to minimize opposition from McConnell to those and future judicial vacancies during the balance of Biden’s presidency. 

 

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ran said:

Find a deal that he's broken. I've searched and can't find anything.

Merrick Garland vs Amy coney Barrett comes to mind immediately. 

1 minute ago, Ran said:

From TFA:

 

That might be the reported reason but I don't get it at all - the process has so far nominated and approved more judges than anyone in their first 500 days, even more than Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On McConnell breaking deals- this is a good one, where he managed to fuck both the gop and dems over after flopping twice on the debt deal last falll:

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/09/mitch-mcconnell-chuck-schumer-poisoned-the-well-republicans-debt-ceiling#amp_tf=From %1%24s&aoh=16565438307923&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

There's some talk about his lying about other things but that isn't a "deal" so I'm assuming you don't care about that.

From what I can tell this is a deal for something in the future as well, as there doesn't appear to be a direct opening nor is there a direct nomination right now. Which makes it even more likely mcconnell would not respect it, and it still is a very bad look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

I've been critical of Dem leaders for a long time. 

Sure, but you were also pretty big on pragmatism re: getting shit done, but feels like maybe you get the fight is different now. That’s all I meant, not a dig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...