US Politics: What will the InJustice League do next?

[Wilbur]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I really need to watch the local news more because I am dying with laughter. Here in MN apparently the Republican controlled Senate passed a bill without realizing they just legalized recreational edibles and beverages containing THC. There's some amount restrictions, but that really doesn't matter. You'll just have to eat two gummies to get the same impact as one sold in CA or CO. They're officially legal to purchase tomorrow if you're over 21. Nice! 

On the one hand it is funny.

On the other hand, the Republican Party used to be the party of adult government, where fiscally-prudent public servants knew how to operate the levers of government and worked diligently to ensure that the established due process of governing kept ticking over.

Today, more than half the politicians calling themselves Republicans are either too dumb or too lazy to read and understand a law, so they end up passing something by accident.

It is infuriating to see such widespread dumbassery in power, and it is additionally infuriating that the National Party apparatus, rather than taking substantive action to weed out morons from the ticket, encourages these electable fools so as to cling to power.

[Tywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

This seems apt, again:

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Eight letter word, take a guess, that's the most guilty party and why we're here.

7 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

On the one hand it is funny.

On the other hand, the Republican Party used to be the party of adult government, where fiscally-prudent public servants knew how to operate the levers of government and worked diligently to ensure that the established due process of governing kept ticking over.

When did this version of the Republican party exist, because it's never been that in my lifetime? The overwhelming majority of elected Republicans, long before the Tea Party and Trump takeover, were never even remotely fiscal conservatives. It was all just words, their actions didn't reflect them at all. And furthermore, these same Republicans went out of their way over and over again to intentionally sabotage the government, at pretty much every level. I'm sorry buddy, but your interpretation of the Republican party does not reflect what they've actually been doing for a long time because...  

Quote

Today, more than half the politicians calling themselves Republicans are either too dumb or too lazy to read and understand a law, so they end up passing something by accident.

It is infuriating to see such widespread dumbassery in power, and it is additionally infuriating that the National Party apparatus, rather than taking substantive action to weed out morons from the ticket, encourages these electable fools so as to cling to power.

This is actually who they have been the entire time. They just did a better job of camouflaging it before. Now there's no looking away from it if you're a sane and rational person, which we both know you are, but do not feed me this horseshit that Republicans in the last five decades have ever been fiscally responsible or good stewards of the government. 

[DMC]

23 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

On the other hand, the Republican Party used to be the party of adult government, where fiscally-prudent public servants knew how to operate the levers of government and worked diligently to ensure that the established due process of governing kept ticking over.

The Republican Party has been the party of moneyed interests since about 1912.

[Fragile Bird]

Did anyone mention this? After not posting since 2020, “Q” has shown up again, to attack Cassidy Hutchinson.

Her life just got worse.

[ThinkerX]

Okay...say the Republicans claim the white house and congress both come 2024.

This puts them in the position of actually having to govern - at least pretend to do 'stuff' now and again. Yes, they'll push full tilt towards dismantling large swaths of the federal government and enact all sorts of horrid laws.

But, if Trumps tenure is anything to go by, spectacular incompetence and stupidity will be the order of the day (and monumental corruption).

So...Say we get hit with a couple hurricane Katrina type events during this period, and there is NO effective federal response because the R's dismantled FEMA. Or a new, much more lethal pandemic - one that is almost as contagious as Covid, but with a fatality rate ten or twenty times greater. And the conservative response is 'fake news's and 'business as usual.' Yes, they'll blame the 'Deep State' or some 'woke corporation' or whatever, but that is likely to wear thin with the base.

There is also the backlash effect - R politicians who voted against repealing the ACA were violently confronted about this from their own people. Image a red state legislature trying to impose especially stupid 'conservative Christian values' (blatantly racist) or major 'blue' metropolises and the scale of the resulting riots. Then imagine the blowback when the relevant R governor sends in the national guard with 'shoot to kill' orders.

Point I'm getting at here is I don't think the R's could handle 'victory.'

 

[horangi]

2 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

This seems apt, again:

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Given Sagan's warnings about Climate Change from the 1980's, its amazing how true he had mastered not only the science of the universe, but also the science of humanity.  For a certain, large portion of the population, there is no evidence that could get them to support global warming, for in doing so, they undermine a core part of their being, which is, never admit you are/were wrong.

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Welcome to the party pal.  80% of the Republicans are on the same team as those guys which 

How do you feel about republicans flirting with reintroducing Sodomy laws?

[straits]

7 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Eight letter word, take a guess, that's the most guilty party and why we're here.

I don't think it can be boiled down to any eight letter word. Plenty of factors allowed the conservative movement in the US to turn into a pulsating sphere of narrativist extremism.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

How do you feel about republicans flirting with reintroducing Sodomy laws?

Has @mcbigski given a serious response to anything in 12 months?  I ran into a jackass on Facebook openly and without irony on a police blotter story argued for a return of Jim Crow laws.

We’re in a dark place.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

6 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Okay...say the Republicans claim the white house and congress both come 2024.

This puts them in the position of actually having to govern - at least pretend to do 'stuff' now and again. Yes, they'll push full tilt towards dismantling large swaths of the federal government and enact all sorts of horrid laws.

But, if Trumps tenure is anything to go by, spectacular incompetence and stupidity will be the order of the day (and monumental corruption).

So...Say we get hit with a couple hurricane Katrina type events during this period, and there is NO effective federal response because the R's dismantled FEMA. Or a new, much more lethal pandemic - one that is almost as contagious as Covid, but with a fatality rate ten or twenty times greater. And the conservative response is 'fake news's and 'business as usual.' Yes, they'll blame the 'Deep State' or some 'woke corporation' or whatever, but that is likely to wear thin with the base.

There is also the backlash effect - R politicians who voted against repealing the ACA were violently confronted about this from their own people. Image a red state legislature trying to impose especially stupid 'conservative Christian values' (blatantly racist) or major 'blue' metropolises and the scale of the resulting riots. Then imagine the blowback when the relevant R governor sends in the national guard with 'shoot to kill' orders.

Point I'm getting at here is I don't think the R's could handle 'victory.'

 

So?

There'll be a backlash for maybe one GE cycle, Democrats take the WH and House (and if they are lucky narrowly the Senate) then the anger subsides and/or the electorate is unhappy about something. Republicans take the trifecta. Rinse and repeat. 

Dubya's war on terror should've put them out of Goverment for a generation. The lawlessness of the orange one, and the unwillingness of the GOP to confront him, should have tarnished them for at least another generation. Alas, who will presumably win the midterms?

 

[Tywin et al.]

2 hours ago, straits said:

I don't think it can be boiled down to any eight letter word. Plenty of factors allowed the conservative movement in the US to turn into a pulsating sphere of narrativist extremism.

But at the core of it is religion, albeit a completely distorted version of what they claim to support, and its developed a cult like fever pitch. 

[straits]

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But at the core of it is religion, albeit a completely distorted version of what they claim to support, and its developed a cult like fever pitch. 

No, the core of it is tribalism with some weird calvinist-derived prosperity gospel. If it wasn't Christianity, it would have been some paradoxical, libertarian-inspired Cult of the Free Man, with privileges for the in-group.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So?

There'll be a backlash for maybe one GE cycle, Democrats take the WH and House (and if they are lucky narrowly the Senate) then the anger subsides and/or the electorate is unhappy about something. Republicans take the trifecta. Rinse and repeat. 

Dubya's war on terror should've put them out of Goverment for a generation. The lawlessness of the orange one, and the unwillingness of the GOP to confront him, should have tarnished them for at least another generation. Alas, who will presumably win the midterms?

 

Right. But that's business as usual, a constant pendulum swinging between the parties; not a permanent right-wing dictatorship. 

[Which Tyler]

20 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

20 minutes ago, Fez said:

Right. But that's business as usual, a constant pendulum swinging between the parties; not a permanent right-wing dictatorship. 

The American electorate seemingly disagrees about it being any different. Don't shoot the messenger, but the pendulum involves authoritarianism and democracy. Before you start with but the pendulum won't swing back. Don't tell me that, get that message into the skulls of so called swing voters and moderate Republicans. Your fellow citizens for most parts are either unaware of the gravity of the situation, or they don't care. So say hello to President de Satan in 2024, and emperor de Satan ever after.

[Ormond]

12 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

When did this version of the Republican party exist, because it's never been that in my lifetime? The overwhelming majority of elected Republicans, long before the Tea Party and Trump takeover, were never even remotely fiscal conservatives.

So, Tywin, just what year were you born? I have gotten the impression from Wilbur's posts that he is considerably older than you are. Apologies to him if that impression is wrong, but I know that I am certainly considerably older than you are.

There were a lot of Republicans for whom reducing government debt was a main issue before Reagan. My father was one of them. His chief concern about government was his belief that most of the national debt was immoral because it was people of earlier generations creating obligations that would have to be paid by their grandchildren long after they were gone. I well remember him writing letters to his Republican congressman during the Reagan administration complaining about the increase in the debt and being angry at the responses he got. He always realized that the "cut taxes and the economy will grow enough that the debt will go down" was a fantasy.  

Now maybe the anti-debt rhetoric of Republican politicians before Reagan was always insincere and it was just because they hadn't held undivided control of the federal government for so long that they were able to convince people they really believed it. But there are still people over 70 like myself who do remember a time over 50 years ago when it did seem like many Republican officeholders were serious about being fiscally responsible. 

 

2 hours ago, straits said:

No, the core of it is tribalism with some weird calvinist-derived prosperity gospel. If it wasn't Christianity, it would have been some paradoxical, libertarian-inspired Cult of the Free Man, with privileges for the in-group.

Please don't blame the modern "prosperity gospel" on Calvinism.  Though some (not all) Calvinists in previous centuries may have seen prosperity as a sign of being "among the elect", this was because they expected that people who were believing Christians would tend to become prosperous because they would have virtues of frugality, hard work, and prudence that would lead to prosperity.  The modern "prosperity gospel" preachers tell people "send my ministry money and you will receive an unexpected check in the mail", and that one can obtain wealth simply by "claiming it through the word of God", which is a very different idea. 

[Zorral]

Mark Meadows’ associate threatened ex-White House aide before her testimony
It was the second warning Cassidy Hutchinson had received before her deposition, cautioning her against cooperating with the panel

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/30/jan-6-hearings-trump-mark-meadows-cassidy-hutchinson-threatened

 

[IFR]

It is fascinating witnessing the despair in this thread. It's a very light sampling of what is to come. As the world gets increasingly desperate in the coming years, interesting times will persist.

This has been an entirely predictable trajectory since Americans (particularly boomers) decided that the only electable parties are extremist Republicans and neoliberal pseudo-Republicans like our current president.

This isn't just a problem of the US. Authoritarianism will envelop the world.

[Zorral]

Why do you all persist in projecting authoritarianism into the future, when it is here?  Domestic terrorism reigns, certain it can operate w/impunity, as with the groups of fully kitted out Proud Boys charging into libraries all month to terrorism children at story hour, crafts and games sessions, with a theme of tolerance, i.e. Gay Pride, howling and screaming to the children they were being groomed by pedophiles -- and taking selfies of Themselves doing so, and posting on Twitter.

[IFR]

18 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Why do you all persist in projecting authoritarianism into the future, when it is here?  Domestic terrorism reigns, certain it can operate w/impunity, as with the groups of fully kitted out Proud Boys charging into libraries all month to terrorism children at story hour, crafts and games sessions, with a theme of tolerance, i.e. Gay Pride, howling and screaming to the children they were being groomed by pedophiles -- and taking selfies of Themselves doing so, and posting on Twitter.

I don't think things have reached a particularly exceptional point in history quite yet. I do think we've passed an inflection point where we as humanity can reasonably overcome our inertia and right our path so that exceptional point can be avoided.

I'm not preaching end times, but I am preaching extraordinarily hard times.