Jump to content

US Politics: Killin' Ya Hard With Hate


Zorral
 Share

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

Oh shit. Title it is then. For how long?

One month. I'm open to suggestions. It will be paid before the playoffs.

37 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

Don't give in, the season ain't over yet

Do not make me fly to the west coast, flay you and make very sloppy love all over my new bearskin rug. 

Edited by Tywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2023 at 2:42 PM, Ran said:

Not only would that be struck down by the Supreme Court, I like Axios noting the fact that the majority of Iowans are for gay marriage and that even if this thing passes out of the legislature (*twice*, even), the citizens of Iowa themselves are almost certain to shoot it down

Hopefully though stunts like this even if they don’t win with the present courts or electorate, it’ helps to steadily normalize less seemingly less atrocious attacks.

On 9/22/2023 at 2:42 PM, Ran said:

ETA: WTF, this is from March

Yep, my mistake for not reading the date before posting.

Goddamn without this context it becomes irresponsible to post and I apologize for doing such.

 

On 9/22/2023 at 2:47 PM, Ran said:

Because it's basically the same Supreme Court that did this.

The basically is pulling a lot of weight I feel. The court then had a 5-4 conservative majority. Now it has a conservative super majority comfortable enough to throwaway decades of old precedent such as Roe. It should also be noted republicans were passing laws they knew would die if Ginsburg was around. They still made betting on the lifespan on a near centurion. They’re not stupid just fundamentally evil.

On 9/22/2023 at 2:57 PM, Ran said:

We survived Scalia, so this, too, shall pass.

And now the court is filled with more people selected because they agreed with the ideological legal framework of Scalia.

Forgive me this one comment gives me a very “The end of history” “Liberal democracy is inevitable” vibe that’s been pretty disastrous for many liberal democracies trying to fight back the far-right because they can’t summon the alarm needed to mobilize people against the creep of authoritarianism.

18 hours ago, mormont said:

I'm sure his defection to the Republican party is imminent. The natural home for those caught red-handed but who want to claim persecution.

He’s actually canceled because he wouldn’t back down against the WOKE Mind virus who said he had to get blue hair and pronouns and not take bribes. 
Though the thought of him turning traitor is nauseating. It’s so lucrative to go far right. I still marvel at how the daily wire was willing to fork over fifty million to Steven Crowder as beginning offer for him to come work for them.

5 hours ago, Jace, Extat said:

I think he's gonna win. It feels strange and inevitable, and I honestly think he'd win from inside a jail cell.

We’ve our political differences but that’s not unreasonable estimation. 
 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Writing a paranoid political thriller offered a look at the ugly truth
An author on what he learned while co-writing ‘The Last Election’ with Andrew Yang

"American politics works by overflowing loathing; that is its core mechanism now. Everything else — policy, law, the electoral system — are subservient to that loathing. It’s not who you want to be in power, it’s who’s the opposite of who you can’t stand to be in power. The sociological term is “complementary radicalization.” You can blame social media algorithms. You can blame Trump. But the same thing has happened in other countries, before Facebook and before “The Apprentice,” and it was the prelude to civil war."

Gift link:

https://wapo.st/3RsPyCA

Quote

 

... We told the inside story of the campaign of a third party that roars to popularity and drives the country toward a contingent election, the constitutional mechanism by which a candidate can win the presidency without winning the popular or electoral college vote. It is an entirely legal American election that is not recognizably democratic, hence “The Last Election,” a paranoid political thriller in which the paranoia is entirely justified.

I couldn’t resist the education Andrew offered me. It’s one thing to read about dark money, or to interview legal experts about dark money and the danger it presents to the American republic. It’s quite another to have it explained, in detail, how the money people and the campaigns aren’t allowed to talk to each other, so campaigns distribute videos of their candidates doing banal family activities on public networks so that the PACs can use them in ads. The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United, which turned the American political system into a game of financial transactions, didn’t just render American politics more corrupt. It made its politics vastly more ridiculous.

There were frank answers to obvious questions, like how sex works on a campaign trail. (It’s sort of like summer camp.) But I became fascinated in particular with the human details that tend to be lost in even the closest campaign reporting. Before debates, candidates are given scraps of paper on which they’re allowed to write notes. They tend to use the triangle method; they write down twenty-second long arguments on each side so that, no matter what question is asked, they can hit all their talking points on the subject. I thought it was sweet, candidates trying to ace a big exam like eager students.

I was also exposed to the fundamental dehumanization of the process. When I was talking to one campaign aide about oppo research, he kept using the phrase “unloading the book,” as in “after the second fundraising report, we unloaded the book on them,” or “we knew they would unload the book on us after the debate.” “Unloading the book” meant unleashing all the accumulated nastiness the researchers had gathered. After hearing this phrase maybe 17 times, I asked if he was talking about an actual book. The man patiently explained that every significant politician in America has a book written about them. I asked if I could look at one, and it was a literal book. The level of detail was startling. Every institution that had ever lent the candidate money. Every antisemite the candidate had ever sat next to at a party. Who they had dated in high school. I couldn’t help thinking what the book about me would look like.

The people who submit to this process are either extraordinarily dedicated or unhinged, or both. One of the most remarkable people I spoke with was an ex-Broadway actor who teaches politicians how to interact with people in a way that projects the impression that they’re human beings. He has exercises. He asks his students a question, then throws them a whiffle ball, and they have to catch the ball before giving their answer. This teaches them to notice the people who are asking them questions. He has them give a speech while putting one piece of Lego on top of another between each sentence, so they learn how to think about what they’re saying even when they’ve said it 10,000 times. ....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something I am starting to wonder about here...

We have radical House republicans engaged in a sham impeachment inquiry against President Biden.

A least a couple of the republicans pushing this impeachment were also active participants in the 1/6 riot/insurrection.

It seems at least possible that these republicans, among others, will be formally charged for their acts on 1/6, possibly resulting in prison time (eventually).

So... what do these republicans do? I can almost envision the 'not-so-bright' ones trying a deal where they drop the impeachment in exchange for not being prosecuted, but I figure defiance, delays, and plea deals are more likely.

Also, should a few republican House members land in prison because of this within the next eight or ten months, then (special elections and appointments depending) the House might at least temporarily flip back to Democratic control. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of this will happen because fascism is here, even if you know who doesn't get the nomination and / or doesn't win the election.  

Militias are going to be attacking small towns in blue states in the not distant future, this time not at school board meetings but on general principles to remove 'blue' officials with red ones in elections -- the way gangs are doing in Colombia right now.  And Mexico too, I think.  They call it drug lords, but fascists=thugs and they certainly are not above selling drugs.  Like, o, you know, Reagan's people did, in order to get Their way.

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Truthfully I don’t care if he dresses casual. But I hate the combo of a long hoodie and shorts. Too long on the top, too short below. Wear a hoodie and sweatpants or shorts with a tank top. 

The late John Prine has a song where he mentions Senator John Fetterman;   

There's a big old goofy man

Dancing with a big old goofy girl

Ooh baby It's a big old goofy world

 

Fetterman might dress like he's still in high school, his behavior however, shows he has left those days behind.  Not like certain mean girls in the House, who dress nice and act poorly.  

Plus, he cleans up real nice!

 

Edited by LongRider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Zorral said:

None of this will happen because fascism is here, even if you know who doesn't get the nomination and / or doesn't win the election.  

Militias are going to be attacking small towns in blue states in the not distant future, this time not at school board meetings but on general principles to remove 'blue' officials with red ones in elections -- the way gangs are doing in Colombia right now.  And Mexico too, I think.  They call it drug lords, but fascists=thugs and they certainly are not above selling drugs.  Like, o, you know, Reagan's people did, in order to get Their way.

Nope. They are far too cowardly, incompetent, and internally treacherous for that.

Witness the idiots that took over the park in Oregon a few years ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only comment on the Fetterman thing is how it shows Dems can't win: they're criticised as 'out of touch elites' but if they show any signs of a common touch, the Republicans will swoon at the lack of decorum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mormont said:

My only comment on the Fetterman thing is how it shows Dems can't win: they're criticised as 'out of touch elites' but if they show any signs of a common touch, the Republicans will swoon at the lack of decorum.

Hard disagree. What Democrats need to do is get back to their roots, which Fetterman represents. Stop listening to all these self important Ivy Leaguers and remember what built the party. Once you get more representation that understands that they won't be seen as elites and and the public will empathize with their coarseness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Hard disagree.

If you think that, I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not at all saying that Dems should not 'get back to their roots'. I'm saying both types of criticism are insincere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

You said they're in a lose-lose situation. I don't view it that way. They just need to stop being cowards for starters.

I’m not saying that, no. When you can’t win, don’t play, is my usual approach.

But your last comment begs the question, in the original sense. It assumes that the problem is cowardice because your preferred answer is just to be braver. It reminds me of football fans who see a losing team and complain they’re just not trying hard enough, like nothing else could be the problem with a team of professional athletes. It’s the timeless appeal of the simple answer to a complicated question. 

I don’t think the Dems are cowards. I think they’re wrong about a lot of stuff, and sometimes too cautious, but caution isn’t always about courage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I’m not saying that, no. When you can’t win, don’t play, is my usual approach.

I tend to believe this as well when you're facing someone you have a 0% chance of beating, but even if there's a 90-10 split you've got to fight.

Quote

But your last comment begs the question, in the original sense. It assumes that the problem is cowardice because your preferred answer is just to be braver. It reminds me of football fans who see a losing team and complain they’re just not trying hard enough, like nothing else could be the problem with a team of professional athletes. It’s the timeless appeal of the simple answer to a complicated question. 

Democrats are cowards. Across the board their positions have way more popular support, but they're meek. Just for example, a majority of Republicans and NRA members support various gun reform policies yet they won't put on the screws, meanwhile Republicans just don't don't care and are getting bolder. 

Quote

I don’t think the Dems are cowards. I think they’re wrong about a lot of stuff, and sometimes too cautious, but caution isn’t always about courage. 

Reelection is more important than fixing things, which to be fair is a problem in most countries that have elections. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How we got from the New Deal to Here.

Heather Cox Richardson, queen of Substack, delivers more bingeable history
‘Democracy Awakening,’ by the author of the popular newsletter ‘Letters From an American,’ assesses America at its current crossroads

Gift link to entire review article

https://wapo.st/48usidy

Quote

 

.... She has an intriguing origin point for today’s afflictions: the New Deal. The first third of the book, which hurtles toward Donald Trump’s election, is as bingeable as anything on Netflix. “Democracy Awakening” starts in the 1930s, when Americans who’d been wiped out in the 1929 stock market crash were not about to let the rich demolish the economy again. New Deal programs designed to benefit ordinary people and prevent future crises were so popular that by 1960 candidates of both parties were advised to simply “nail together” coalitions and promise them federal funding. From 1946 to 1964, the liberal consensus — with its commitments to equality, the separation of church and state, and the freedoms of speech, press and religion — held sway.

But Republican businessmen, who had caused the crash, despised the consensus. Richardson’s account of how right-wingers appropriated the word “socialism” from the unrelated international movement is astute. When invoked to malign all government investment, “socialism” served to recruit segregationist Democrats, who could be convinced that the word meant Black people would take their money, and Western Democrats, who resented government protections on land and water. This new Republican Party created an ideology that coalesced around White Christianity and free markets.

But winning voters without serving their interests is always a tall order. So in the early ’70s, in Richardson’s telling, Republicans began to harbor doubts about democracy itself. They developed nasty backup plans for when elections didn’t go their way, including gerrymandering, cheating and packing the judiciary with right-wing ideologues. The elections of Richard Nixon in 1972 and George W. Bush in 2000 exposed forms of electoral gameplay that didn’t require delivering anything of value to voters.

And then a boom-bust businessman famous for allegations of racial bias and sexual misconduct won the presidency as a Republican with no coherent policy platform at all. Some of Nixon’s marquee tricksters even rode sidecar in Trump’s victory. “In 2016,” Richardson writes, “the Republicans would ride the themes of the past forty years to their logical conclusion.”

This is the most lucid just-so story for Trump’s rise I’ve ever heard. It’s magisterial. In my experience hosting the podcast “Trumpcast,” Trumpologists are typically aberrationists or continuists. Aberrationists believe that Trump is a black swan. Continuists, whose numbers include intellectuals such as Ezra Klein and Max Boot, see Trump on a continuum with Republicans of the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s. Richardson is in this second camp — and, for my money, she gives the continuity thesis its best hearing. ....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Nope. They are far too cowardly, incompetent, and internally treacherous for that.

Witness the idiots that took over the park in Oregon a few years ago. 

Witness the attack on the Capitol.

Over and over we see Them taking over with the incompetence, etc.  The stupidity etc. are part of Their strategic arsenal.  It has been such a frustration for me, at least, since at least Reagan, that 'Our' only idea of either defense or attack is to jeer about how stupid 'They' are. While They continue going from one victory to another on Their agenda.

'We' have to get over this.

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...