US Politics: Supreme Courting to insanity.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Ironically I don’t feel as comfortable on having enough data about his interactions with his wife and daughter, though I agree they seem the most likely to be able to cut through the noise and arrest his attention.  

Well I think it's just easier to manipulate him as a loved one on a personal level compared to trying to consistently manipulate him into adhering to your political agenda.  I'd say that applies to most everybody.

[JGP]

6 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

This is so true. My ex-boyfriend was 100% firmly in this camp. It was very painful. He was a hardcore Fox viewer. He also seriously believed that “socialist Democrats” were FAR more of a threat to democracy than Trump’s authoritarianism.

They are. Trump was their means to the end.

Wait, sorry Chats. I totally misread the above. I'm going for a walk.

Edited June 26, 2022 by JGP

[James Arryn]

On 6/25/2022 at 10:00 AM, Ormond said:

I hate to break this to you, but politics has NEVER been "the first thing on most people's minds", no matter what the political landscape is. 

I don't think this is bizarre at all when you realize how much the right-wing has demonized the Democrats and the "liberal media" over the last 30 years. Many Republican voters now really believe that it is the Democrats and the media who are the greatest threats to democracy and that they are plotting to put us under a socialistic authoritarian dictatorship which will outlaw religion and control all aspects of our lives. In order to convince people who believe that to vote for a Democrat, you have to convince them not only that Trump is a "serious threat to democracy" but that he is a GREATER "threat to democracy" than they believe the Democrats are, and that's really difficult given the number of years they've been exposed to anti-left propaganda. 

I’d add that the half-century (at least) spent sophomorically demonizing socialism itself laid the tracks, making demonizing the democrats along similar lines just an extension of the same rhetorical mantras. 

Edited June 26, 2022 by James Arryn

[James Arryn]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well I think it's just easier to manipulate him as a loved one on a personal level compared to trying to consistently manipulate him into adhering to your political agenda.  I'd say that applies to most everybody.

Assuming the Eric Exception applies here too, yeah?

Edited June 26, 2022 by James Arryn

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Assuming the Eric Exception applies here too, yeah?

LOL, of course.  Tiffany too, it seems.  Hard to say with Junior.

[LongRider]

39 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Which I guess would be better than the entire country going Gilead.

I understand your sentiments, but don't forget the US has nuclear bombs stored in many different states.  Besides going Gilead this also scares me.  

 

Article with map of nuke locations

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2022 by LongRider

[James Arryn]

27 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

This is so true. My ex-boyfriend was 100% firmly in this camp. It was very painful. He was a hardcore Fox viewer. He also seriously believed that “socialist Democrats” were FAR more of a threat to democracy than Trump’s authoritarianism.

I have only know a few Republican voters who are not hardcore Republicans - one of them is a swing voter (yes, they still exist). These are people who do NOT watch Fox News or watch it only infrequently and balance it out with CNN. They voted for Trump because he had an “R” next to his name, not because they were MAGA-cult members.

This is not common anymore, and it’s pretty sad because we really do need two viable political parties in the US, not the “moderates vs the crazies”. We need to be able to have constructive conversations.

Sadly, we are so polarized, and I don’t see it changing any time soon.

My father, sadly a Trumpist, did not pay any attention to the hearings because the commission has no Republicans and is therefore biased. This is a very bright man with several letters after his name, and a Canadian to boot, none of which have managed to protect him from embracing doublethink.
 

Anyways, I pointed out that there are two, but he said they are not real Republicans. I asked where Liz Cheney differs from being a pretty classic Republican on almost every issue, and the only one he could come up with was she opposes Trump. Mind you, he had earlier dismissed my claim that the GOP had essentially become the Trump party as ‘ridiculous’. But when I asked for anything else about Cheney that disqualifies her as a ‘real’ Republican* he decided that was the time to stop the discussion because ‘neither of us will convince the other’. 

So fucking depressing. 

 

Edited June 26, 2022 by James Arryn

[karaddin]

9 minutes ago, LongRider said:

I understand your sentiments, but don't forget the US has nuclear bombs stored in many different states.  Besides going Gilead this also scares me.  

 

Article with map of nuke locations

 

 

 

Oh trust me, I still wasn't seeing it as a good thing. Just trying to make out a very thin silver lining

[LongRider]

2 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Oh trust me, I still wasn't seeing it as a good thing. Just trying to make out a very thin silver lining

I hear you; I have mixed feelings on a breakup of the US, and not just about nukes.  

[Tywin et al.]

31 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

This is not common anymore, and it’s pretty sad because we really do need two viable political parties in the US, not the “moderates vs the crazies”. We need to be able to have constructive conversations.

The twisted part is so many think they're moderate despite being decidedly one sided. The middle has become an illusion. 

[James Arryn]

25 minutes ago, LongRider said:

I understand your sentiments, but don't forget the US has nuclear bombs stored in many different states.  Besides going Gilead this also scares me.  

 

Article with map of nuke locations

 

 

 

I have long thought something I’ve never mentioned to anyone else except my wife, but this seems like a good time to get feedback. 
 

I hold as a basic assumption that if the U.S. descends into a militant Republican ~theocracy or autocracy, either invading or destroying Canada (or reviving the Dulles two-step) is almost a given. Right-wing Americans have routinely expressed great frustration and outright anger at the frequency with which Canada is held up as a contrast by critics along many lines and almost automatically describe Canada as socialist and/or communist. I’m not remotely saying it’s anywhere near the top of their list of priorities, but I feel pretty confident it’s on there somewhere. 
 

Thoughts?

Edited June 26, 2022 by James Arryn

[James Arryn]

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The twisted part is so many think they're moderate despite being decidedly one sided. The middle has become an illusion. 

To be fair, studies have shown that most people of almost any political persuasion think they’re the politics goldilocks would eat. 

[karaddin]

I know the Dems are very unlikely to do anything that involves increasing the size of the court, but I really feel like it needs to happen. Instead of just adding a few justices, I think the expansion should be significantly larger but retain 9 as the number of justices on a case and they're selected randomly. The idea is that by making it so you can't be sure of the ideological make up of the court you'll get ahead of time, it might start to slowly reduce the politicisation of the court.

[JGP]

17 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Thoughts?

Just got back from a quick walk with my oblivious dog, but nope. Fuck you, James lol 

[JGP]

2 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I know the Dems are very unlikely to do anything that involves increasing the size of the court, but I really feel like it needs to happen. Instead of just adding a few justices, I think the expansion should be significantly larger but retain 9 as the number of justices on a case and they're selected randomly. The idea is that by making it so you can't be sure of the ideological make up of the court you'll get ahead of time, it might start to slowly reduce the politicisation of the court.

That's sharp.

[Madame deVenoge]

19 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

To be fair, studies have shown that most people of almost any political persuasion think they’re the politics goldilocks would eat. 

Hm - I think there is a middle (though it is dwindling, sadly).

[Madame deVenoge]

45 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I have long thought something I’ve never mentioned to anyone else except my wife, but this seems like a good time to get feedback. 
 

I hold as a basic assumption that if the U.S. descends into a militant Republican ~theocracy or autocracy, either invading or destroying Canada (or reviving the Dulles two-step) is almost a given. Right-wing Americans have routinely expressed great frustration and outright anger at the frequency with which Canada is held up as a contrast by critics along many lines and almost automatically describe Canada as socialist and/or communist. I’m not remotely saying it’s anywhere near the top of their list of priorities, but I feel pretty confident it’s on there somewhere. 
 

Thoughts?

Literally none of the screaming right wing fanatics I have ever known (ex husband’s friends, ex boyfriend) have ever considered Canada anything other than a sovereign country Not To Be Invaded.

The right wing cares more about clinging to their guns, their religion, and their hatred of non-white “invaders” and also controlling women more than anything else. 

You may have missed this, but “America First” means navel gazing and not being involved in foreign affairs.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Chataya de Fleury

[Zorral]

47 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Thoughts?

Every time in the past the US invaded Canada, their asses got whipped.  Just like TX's did every time it invaded New Mexico.    You asked for thoughts ....

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Instead of just adding a few justices, I think the expansion should be significantly larger

I've long been a proponent of expanding the size of the Court significantly.  I used to link to an article that was a really good argument for it, can't find it quickly right now.  But the point is it isn't just about how batshit the court's current composition is.  It also makes sense from practical, good government, and policy perspectives - and would make the court much more representative (and it sorely needs to be).

[DMC]