US Politics - Breaking the Seal

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If it is legal to avoid paying taxes, then one is rather a fool to not take advantage of what the law permits.

Rich people, and especially really rich people, should do much more than what's legally required.  If you wanna wax philosophically, that's pretty much ingrained into the social contract - or at least Rousseau's (plus this is one of Hume's big beefs).  Even monstrous families like the Rockefellers, Carnegies and Vanderbilts had enough shame to give back in the end.  Anyway, expecting more of our best and brightest is even belabored and counted upon (much more than this reader prefers) in The Federalist Papers.  It's a big part of "Western" thought.  These days it's The Giving Pledge.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

You seem to have a higher view of republican sanity than myself.

Something I have seen pop up more and more often amongst far-right pundits: federal senators are to be appointed by the state legislatures. So, you have a state with a D majority, but thanks to gerrymandering, is under the sway of a R minority who really, really do not like being reminded they are a minority. So, the ram through the 'Senator by legislative appointment' and the current SC blatantly overrules any lawsuit to the contrary. Some R states might not be far off from trying something like this.

To do that they would have to repeal the 17th amendment.  There aren’t 38 States willing to ratify that amendment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvii

[Mindwalker]

The 11th Appeals Court put on hold Graham's scheduled testimony for Tuesday.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, KalVsWade said:

Barring Abbott having fucked a boy there is almost no chance of orourke winning. 

Gotta love the quote, "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy." 

14 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

The 11th Appeals Court put on hold Graham's scheduled testimony for Tuesday.

There's always a sympathetic court for the rich and powerful, especially for conservative white men.

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Rich people, and especially really rich people, should do much more than what's legally required.  

Call them what they are, hoarders who lack economic patriotism. 

[Spockydog]

wrong thread.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Anyone yearning for some Milliband chaos yet?

 

How are UK NGas prices this high?  Doesn’t the UK have its own domestic sources from its North Sea platforms?

[Spockydog]

20 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How are UK NGas prices this high?  Doesn’t the UK have its own domestic sources from its North Sea platforms?

The Tories continue to take millions in bribes donations from oil and gas.

Strangely, this isn't happening in France, where energy price rises have been capped at 4% by Macron.

Anyway, sorry, wrong thread...

[James Arryn]

21 hours ago, DMC said:

I agree with most everything that's already been said - albeit I hasten to note Ted Cruz's election as US Senator from Texas has nothing to do with gerrymandering.  You can't gerrymander an entire state.

The GOP's rightward shift over the last half century is observable.  You could mark the starting point as Reagan, who did fuse/solidify the Christian right with the GOP (immediately after Carter intensely courted them).  You could mark the shift at about Watergate.  Or, you could mark it with the signing of the CRA and VRA for when realignment started and southern racists began switching parties then eventually becoming more emboldened and extreme in taking over the GOP.

To answer your question, no, there is not much hope for the SC Republican Party in the foreseeable future and frankly it's impressive the "establishment" has staved off the crazies there this long.

The Pew graphs, and the correlation between the 2, is almost literally Gingrich’s battle plan made real. Love him or hate him…I obviously hate him…he has been the greatest single human factor in US politics for several decades.  

[James Arryn]

On 8/21/2022 at 9:15 AM, Wade1865 said:

Ser Soct A Ellison -- it's a reaction to counterparts in the left wing. Or, maybe it's a counterreaction, to the reaction, to the action, et sic porro. In the meantime, in reponse to this temporary empowerment of the radical right wing, the USG will (and intends to) keep the population pacified long enough to ensure the right wing naturally eases off in response to the inevitable mass of the left wing.

Though, if the USG fails to counter a correlation of forces in favor of a radicalized right wing, which is not unprecedented during volatile times, the US might experience something a little more interesting (i.e., civil strife, at most).

“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”

[Wade1865]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

Even monstrous families like the Rockefellers, Carnegies and Vanderbilts had enough shame to give back in the end.

DMC -- I studied the OG industrialists, Rockefeller and Carnegie, but wasn't familiar with the Vanderbilts. Apparently, they went all the way, and gave up the entire family fortune within 50 years. The partriarch, Cornelius, acquired $100 million. His son, William, inherited the most, then doubled it. Subsequent descendants donated or squandered the rest of the fortune.

I read that during a family reunion in the 70s, none of the 120 or so descendants remained a millionaire. I don't believe this, and I'm sure a family branch or two retained some, or built their own, wealth (e.g. CNN's Cooper Anderson was a descendant, by way of Gloria Vanderbilt (a real beauty)).

It's beyond my comprehension why Buffet and Gates took the pledge, but I'm sure it will benefit humanity.

[James Arryn]

59 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

DMC -- I studied the OG industrialists, Rockefeller and Carnegie, but wasn't familiar with the Vanderbilts. Apparently, they went all the way, and gave up the entire family fortune within 50 years. The partriarch, Cornelius, acquired $100 million. His son, William, inherited the most, then doubled it. Subsequent descendants donated or squandered the rest of the fortune.

I read that during a family reunion in the 70s, none of the 120 or so descendants remained a millionaire. I don't believe this, and I'm sure a family branch or two retained some, or built their own, wealth (e.g. CNN's Cooper Anderson was a descendant, by way of Gloria Vanderbilt (a real beauty)).

It's beyond my comprehension why Buffet and Gates took the pledge, but I'm sure it will benefit humanity.

In ancient Athens there was a very simple means for correlation between wealth and responsibility: the richest were simply compelled to do things like pay for ships, armaments, etc*. The richer you were, the more was demanded of you. And there was a mechanism in place to correct the system should it prove too onerous; any citizen could, if they felt too much was demanded of them, cry foul.
 

At which point it was put open to the citizenry, that anyone could switch places with the complainant. Trade houses, possessions, wealth etc. AND demands. If no one agreed to switch places it was judged that the complaint was valid. 
 

The reason the Athenians acted this way was that they remembered something many modern Americans have forgotten: the current system is not THE system. It is one variation of one choice amongst many. It is not a meritocracy, it is a system that benefits certain types of people and disadvantages others. Athens sat in the midst of a legion of city states representing a wide range of political systems, most of whom changed periodically, and as such did not treat it as a given. If you grew wealthy in a certain system, they saw, it had something to do with your abilities and efforts, but much more to do with the system itself. Similarly to those on the downside of the chosen system.
 

America has largely forgotten that, and treats wealth as virtue, regardless of the fact that the greatest effort most wealthy people make to become wealthy is passing the birth canal. But when you consider alternatives…especially in the ages where people rising up against the wealthy was much more common…many wealthy people acted ‘altruistically’ as a preemptive measure. But decades and decades of systemic, overt brainwashing about communism, socialism, unions, bootstraps, trickles and terrorists and they-takin-our-jobs! has engendered a country wherein huge swathes of victims fight tooth and nail for the agents and benefactors of their victimization because, say, Antifa. Or socialism. Or BLM. Or Islam. Etc. 

Now consider that some amongst those who have identified the fact that they are being systemically fucked have chosen, as the leader to fight against their oppression, a born-into-vast wealth Ivy League educated draft dodging never-worked-a-real-day-in-his-life political dilettante whose political capital was almost entirely spent on self-aggrandizement and INCREASING the economic disparity and it’s systemic structures. Anti-establishment? Make me laugh/cry. And why? Literally because they feel victimized. It’s like finding out your house is on fire and trying to fix it by dousing it in gasoline. 
 

* a moment for the American knee to jerk, yes, the birthplace of democracy was communist!

[Wade1865]

53 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”

James Arryn -- you make a great point, I will admit. Propaganda and its effects are fascinating, and is playing an enhanced role (especially when coupled with social media) in the volatility we saw in the recent past, and will see in the near future. Remember, though, no party is immune to its effects. As a test, I want you to watch this YouTube video, which is clearly propaganda, and tell me who you think the real target is.

And here's another quote, by the same propagandist, with clear implications on what we may see in the near future depending on who runs in 2024. Though your quote represents the power of influence, this one represents the power of coercion, "Whoever can conquer the street will one day conquer the state, for every form of power politics ... has its roots in the street." Both are centrally applicable today.

[James Arryn]

50 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

James Arryn -- you make a great point, I will admit. Propaganda and its effects are fascinating, and is playing an enhanced role (especially when coupled with social media) in the volatility we saw in the recent past, and will see in the near future. Remember, though, no party is immune to its effects. As a test, I want you to watch this YouTube video, which is clearly propaganda, and tell me who you think the real target is.

And here's another quote, by the same propagandist, with clear implications on what we may see in the near future depending on who runs in 2024. Though your quote represents the power of influence, this one represents the power of coercion, "Whoever can conquer the street will one day conquer the state, for every form of power politics ... has its roots in the street." Both are centrally applicable today.

Sure, there are ways both sides do it, but they aren’t remotely equal. The number of studies showing who lies, which viewership is least informed or in fact less informed than if they watched literally nothing, etc. 

Gobbles would precede virtually every Hitler speech with one of his own. He would open every one of those speeches with an extended attack against one specific group. Do you know who, and his (stated) reasons why?

[Martell Spy]

‘We got rolled’: How the conservative grassroots lost the fight with Biden because it was focused on Trump
The former president’s presence on the political landscape is making it harder to launch a modern day Tea Party movement.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/22/conservative-grassroots-biden-trump-00052983

Quote

 

But instead of mounting a massive grassroots opposition to tank or tar the Inflation Reduction Act, conservatives and right-wing news outlets spent the past week with their gaze elsewhere: the FBI’s search of Donald Trump’s Palm Beach mansion.

Hundreds of them gathered instead outside Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in South Florida to protest what they viewed as an egregious example of federal government overreach. Back in Washington, conservative activists did rally against the bill and targeted vulnerable Democrats in ads. But even the main organizers conceded that they had little time to muster the opposition-party gusto of years past.

“Everything was moving so fast, the tax provisions were being debated on the fly, so there was very little time for groups to do that in-depth grassroots pushback like we saw during Obamacare,” said Cesar Ybarra, vice president of policy at conservative grassroots organization FreedomWorks. “To create buzz in this town and for it to penetrate across America, you need more time. So yeah, we got rolled.”

 

 

[Wade1865]

25 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

In ancient Athens...

James Arryn -- phenomenal post (that is, the wisdom, intensity, and emotion really shine through), thank you. It does inform, and reinforce, my thoughts on what the greatest threat to the US really is: wealth inequality and subsequent social fracture. And I do wonder what historical examples, as a consequence of current conditions, will be realized (e.g. ropes, guillotines, or stakes) as the situation continues to degrade.

In the early 2000s, I studied the Ancient Greeks in terms of warfare, but less of politics. I recall the wealthy were required to play central roles during battle, and were often punished if outcomes proved unsuccessful. It doesn't surprise me they were also required to provide financial support. To your point, with few exceptions, US politicians (including both Uncle Joe and the God Emperor) provided neither risk to body nor to wealth (beyond taxes, which they minimize). I risked both, often recklessly; ironically, I'm apolitical and enjoy the peace it facilitates.

I don't agree the US isn't a meritocracy. It really is, though I believe meritocracy itself is the prime reason why there's such wealth inequality. Not everyone has the will or capacity to acquire (by way of exploiting the system) status, power, wealth. I also don't agree birth is the prime reason for wealth. Most familial wealth is lost by the third generation (e.g. the Vanderbilts). Moreover, the majority of millionaires today are self-made.

Despite our disagreement on the role of meritocracy, and how most wealth is earned -- within the US -- I do agree the end-state is the same; both the left wing and right wing masses see themselves as being screwed by the other side, and are thus radicalizing (e.g., BLM and ANTIFA; Proud Boys and militias; et al.).

48 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

He would open every one of those speeches with an extended attack against one specific group. Do you know who, and his (stated) reasons why?

James Arryn -- I'm not sure, but I'm curious who, and why. As a guess, I'm assuming Jews, because of wealth inequality?

[Wilbur]

8 hours ago, DMC said:

Rich people, and especially really rich people, should do much more than what's legally required.  If you wanna wax philosophically, that's pretty much ingrained into the social contract - or at least Rousseau's (plus this is one of Hume's big beefs).  Even monstrous families like the Rockefellers, Carnegies and Vanderbilts had enough shame to give back in the end.  Anyway, expecting more of our best and brightest is even belabored and counted upon (much more than this reader prefers) in The Federalist Papers.  It's a big part of "Western" thought.  These days it's The Giving Pledge.

And as a result of the actions of Andrew Carnegie, as a child in Western Pennsylvania, I thought that the big, public buildings full of books were each called a "Carnegie".

https://oilregionlibraries.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/06_10_017915-1024x645.jpg

 It wasn't until we moved away for the first time that I learned the actual name for such a building was a "library".

[Spockydog]

Jeff Bezos built a homeless shelter or some shit.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

5 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Jeff Bezos built a homeless shelter or some shit.

 

On Earth?

[Wade1865]

4 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Jeff Bezos built a homeless shelter or some shit.

 

4 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

On Earth?

Spockydog, et al. -- it's estimated that nearly 15 billion USD of Jeff's wealth has been redistributed philanthropically, either directly by him; or, indirectly through his ex-wife, MacKenzie. And I suspect he'll eventually sign the Giving Pledge (or alternative) once he's approaching end of life (unless he finds the cure to aging).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

It is pathetic that we don’t see more of this:

https://twitter.com/rpsagainsttrump/status/1561765922909700099?s=21&t=5eGO9rSDoA-Et7zEyD6VXw