US Politics: Chaos Made to Border

[Zorral]

20 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Good then we can save ourselves billions and defund the duty-less bastards.

AND -- take away all their military grade stuff too, and their vehicles and their fortresses.

The prisons as well, since they too are part of what are to protect the people.

IOW, these fascists are saying it right out -- as they have for a long time -- the only point of cops and prisons is to protect the fascists / capitalists.

Edited February 3 by Zorral

[DireWolfSpirit]

^^^Agreed...

They sing a remarkably different tune when they want or need the services of the men in blue for thier own protection.

It's just the great unwashed that Senators and Justices opine over how the police aren't obligated to serve.

Just a really gross view and damn short of anything I'd call patriotic.

Edited February 3 by DireWolfSpirit

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Ok, I'll bite. Just opened a Swift Playlist.

It's ok, inoffensive pop. Nothing exceptional musically, stuff you can listen to while doing other stuff. Nothing wrong with that, that's perfectly fine. However I don't think it would've drawn me into attending a concert as teenager.

Going back to it.

I have so many questions. How is she selling that many records. Her music is perfectly fine and all, but the specialty in it is sorta lost on me. There are better female vocalists out there (her voice is perfectly fine, but in terms of range and richness its not standing out (Lovato or Grande have better voices from that generation)), and I also find her song writing also just okay, but not exceptional. It just doesn't appeal to me at all. And how are conservatives so scared of her.

What am I missing?

 

Edited February 3 by A Horse Named Stranger

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Ok, I'll bite. Just opened a Swift Playlist.

See? the psy-op is working. By the time we get to page 12 of this thread it'll be a chorus of, "Hey, I'm really getting into this!" "Oh, man. This fucking SLAPS!" "Wow, this is rocking good stuff!" "That song where she sings about love? I like that one."

...and then it's off to the reeducation camps. We're through the looking glass here people. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

4 hours ago, LongRider said:

They will stumble around and wet themselves.  

Swift will smile and sing another song.   

They could add Ron Jeremy to fill out the Boomer-Rapist-Pedo task force. The kids'll go crazy for it. He had a cameo in Ghostbusters, don'cha know.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

8 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

See? the psy-op is working. By the time we get to page 12 of this thread it'll be a chorus of, "Hey, I'm really getting into this!" "Oh, man. This fucking SLAPS!" "Wow, this is rocking good stuff!" "That song where she sings about love? I like that one."

...and then it's off to the reeducation camps. We're through the looking glass here people. 

Not really, check above. Like I said, perfectly fine inoffensive pop. But nothing special in my book. I am really more baffled how she is that big. I find that very confusing.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Just now, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Not really, check above. Like I said, perfectly fine inoffensive pop. But nothing special in my book. I am really more baffled how she is that big. I find that very confusing.

Give it a few days and you won't be so "confused". That's how they get ya.

Tip one out for @A Horse Named Stranger

 

[Jaxom 1974]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

 

What am I missing?

 

Being a 12 year old girl?

My daughter is obsessed. I particularly like the enormous, 'Taylor Swift Save America 2024" flag she's hung in her bedroom. It's pink and absolutely telling the MAGA flags.  Does she see that? Not sure it matters.

And I actually find a number of Swift's songs pretty good. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

6 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

And I actually find a number of Swift's songs pretty good. 

See? It's starting. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Not really, check above. Like I said, perfectly fine inoffensive pop. But nothing special in my book. I am really more baffled how she is that big. I find that very confusing.

I'll take it a step further, how are Beyonce and Rihanna these megastars? All three of them are talented and put on great shows by all accounts, but they're not uniquely talented like some past global stars. My best guess is that rap and rock are kind of in a low place and country is basically pop music these days. Face it, most music today sucks (damn I'm becoming an old man fast).  

[karaddin]

If you want to try something completely different to tell yourself you're not that old yet, you could give Ado a try - she's a young Japanese singer and definitely not bland!

[Liffguard]

50 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Face it, most music today sucks (damn I'm becoming an old man fast).  

Going off-topic, but this just isn't true? There's so much amazing music being produced every day all over the world, from tiny unsigned local acts to big well-known names. Sure, there's lots of crap too, but that's always been true. It's just that we remember the classics and forget the dross.

Arguably, today's music scene is much more fractured than it used to be, with fewer utterly dominant pop stars (Taylor Swift aside). But that just means you have to go actively looking for great music a bit more, not that it isn't there.

 

Now movies? Movies are absolutely getting worse

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Going off-topic, but this just isn't true? There's so much amazing music being produced every day all over the world, from tiny unsigned local acts to big well-known names. Sure, there's lots of crap too, but that's always been true. It's just that we remember the classics and forget the dross.

Arguably, today's music scene is much more fractured than it used to be, with fewer utterly dominant pop stars (Taylor Swift aside). But that just means you have to go actively looking for great music a bit more, not that it isn't there.

Nah, it's all more or less the same and designed for mass appeal, mostly with marginal talents that require heavy studio editing. It's in part why lip-syncing went from an insult to an industry standard. Just about anyone can be made to sound good these days, hence why Usher once told Lil Jon that he ruined the music industry. 

Quote

Now movies? Movies are absolutely getting worse

Idk about that. There's just a lot more bad movies, and sometimes those can be really fun. 

[kissdbyfire]

Also, don't we tend to think of "the bestest ever" in music, film, etc by associating artists and their art with moments that are especially happy or significant or even care-free in our lives? 

[Zorral]

Bad Arguments and Good Historians
The History of Section 3 and the Future of the Republic
TIMOTHY SNYDER

https://snyder.substack.com/p/bad-arguments-and-good-historians?

Quote

 

Anyone who can read the Constitution knows that Donald Trump cannot hold office. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution forbids anyone who has taken an oath as an "officer of the United States" and then engaged in insurrection from holding office again. 

After the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump could not be on a primary ballot in the state, the United States Supreme Court agreed to consider the following issue: "Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?" Argument begins this coming Thursday.

In public, in media, and now in briefs, those who wish to show that Colorado did err make three bad arguments. They amount to excuses for the Supreme Court not to apply the plain wording of the Constitution.  Here they are:

1.  The president of the United States is not "an officer of the United States."

2.  Trump is disqualified only if convicted of a crime or when Congress passes a law.

3.  Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to the 1860s.

A majority of the members of the Supreme Court advertise themselves as people who attend to the plain wording of the Constitution, or to its meaning as understood by framers, legislators, or people at the time.  

Those arguing for Trump push the plain wording past the breaking point.  It is impossible in good faith to believe that the president of the United States is not an officer of the United States.  But, were there to be any doubt about this or the other issues, the majority of the members of the Supreme Court take the view that the legislative, political, and social context would decide what is meant.

This is where historians come in.  These bad arguments have been met by good history, provided in two amicus briefs signed by two groups of prominent historians with expertise on the issues in question.  The two briefs come to the same conclusions, and I will cite them both.  One is signed by twenty-five historians and the other by five historians; I will cite the Brief of Twenty-Five as "25" and the Brief of Five as "5"  with page numbers.

The first bad argument, that the president of the United States is not an "officer of the United States," might be dismissed on commonsensical grounds. If not the president, then who?

man in robe statue in grayscale photography
But if there is any doubt, the history resolves it. The Constitution of 1787 describes the president as an officer holding an office.  The president who held office in 1868, at the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, called himself an "officer."  The chief drafter of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, John Bingham, applied the word "officer" to the president.  Bingham explicitly said that his phrasing applied to the presidency. When the issue arose in debate over the Fourteenth Amendment, it was understood that Section 3 applied to the president. (25:4-8).  The five historians in their brief conclude that legislators "did not place presidents or presidential candidates out of reach, exceptions that would have defied the logic of Section Three" (5:24).

Then as now, the central concern was that an insurrectionist would run for president. In 1868, the fear was that Jefferson Davis, the former president of the confederacy, could run for president of the United States (5:12).  In public discussion about Section 3, it was understood that the purpose and consequence of Section 3 was, precisely, to prevent Jefferson Davis from running for president.  Everyone, in other words, knew that Section 3 applied to a candidacy for the office of president of the United States.  This included Jefferson Davis himself, who understood that he had been disqualified by Section 3 from seeking office (5:25-30). ....

 

Jamelle Bouie, another fine historian, laid out these points for us early last month, which then I shared here as gift link; i.e. honest historians who know the Constitution in reality -- not the blowers of flatulance on faux, in the House, etc. -- have read matters, material, evidence and context the same way.

JAMELLE BOUIE
If Trump Is Not an Insurrectionist, What Is He?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/opinion/trump-insurrections-disqualification-14th-amendment.html
 

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

most music today sucks

You aren't getting old.  You're just narrow minded.

There is so much spectacular music being made and performed, in the caribbean countries, latin american countries, arabic countries, african countries, even right here in the USA as in New Orleans and NYC and so on.  We never run out of new music to check out, live and recorded.  Not to mention the music still being made by our friends.

Edited February 3 by Zorral

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

38 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You aren't getting old.  You're just narrow minded.

There is so much spectacular music being made and performed, in the caribbean countries, latin american countries, arabic countries, african countries, even right here in the USA as in New Orleans and NYC and so on.  We never run out of new music to check out, live and recorded.  Not to mention the music still being made by our friends.

The main acts are rather boring. Typically I find better stuff in small clubs. It's all about making money, not art, at the high end.

[Conflicting Thought]

40 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

The main acts are rather boring. Typically I find better stuff in small clubs. It's all about making money, not art, at the high end.

Ok? If you think music and movies (or art in general) is somehow worse, im sorry to tell you but that is a you problem. The argument that is all about making money has been true for decades, thats capitalism for you. But its also true that people are making amazing art, specially in the last 10 years or so, thanks to technologicall inovations has made it possible to make some awesome things with very little. And with the internet we have allot more acces to art from other places that we didnt have before.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

4 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

I'll take it a step further, how are Beyonce and Rihanna these megastars? All three of them are talented and put on great shows by all accounts, but they're not uniquely talented like some past global stars.

I don't know, I'd say that Beyonce is uniquely talented. A unique all-around talent as an entertainer. Not as sensational as Michael Jackson was, but in that vein. I hate the pop music machine in general and the cult of fans it creates, but I don't begrudge Beyonce any of her success. Taylor I don't quite understand the worship, but you could definitely do worse. Rihanna's just cool, and she knows it. 

 

I'll add some playlists of new music just in case anyone's interested. Some great stuff!

2023 Part 1:

2023 Part 2:

And this one's from January 2024 alone:

 

Edited February 3 by Phylum of Alexandria
playlists

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

27 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Ok? If you think music and movies (or art in general) is somehow worse, im sorry to tell you but that is a you problem. The argument that is all about making money has been true for decades, thats capitalism for you. But its also true that people are making amazing art, specially in the last 10 years or so, thanks to technologicall inovations has made it possible to make some awesome things with very little. And with the internet we have allot more acces to art from other places that we didnt have before.

There use to be a better balance between the quality of art and the profit motive. Now it feels like most things are safe and sterile and that tends to line up with a lot of problems in the US. Just look at the empty political messaging and mind numbing corporate double speak. And it's only going to get worse. 

And those technologies you're praising are going to create a lot of problems. We're already seeing how easy it is to make deep fakes and the tech is only going to improve while the government is barely going to react to it. 

17 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I don't know, I'd say that Beyonce is uniquely talented. A unique all-around talent as an entertainer. Not as sensational as Michael Jackson was, but in that vein. I hate the pop music machine in general and the cult of fans it creates, but I don't begrudge Beyonce any of her success. Taylor I don't quite understand the worship, but you could definitely do worse. Rihanna's just cool, and she knows it. 

They connect with their fan base is the simple answer. Bringing it back to politics, that's how a lot of mediocre elected officials get elected.