|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
The testimonies from the hearing are nuts.
Congressman texts president's chief of staff about a crazy conspiracy theory youtube video and both ag and sec of def has to deal with it.
|
|
The committee certainly feels like a double edged sword where the more impropriety they uncover the more impotent they look in being able to redress it.
If there was a criminal conspiracy for insurrection without accountability it's possibly more damning than if there wasn't and this is all pearl clutching theater.
|
On June 24 2022 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote: The committee certainly feels like a double edged sword where the more impropriety they uncover the more impotent they look in being able to redress it.
If there was a criminal conspiracy for insurrection without accountability it's possibly more damning than if there wasn't and this is all pearl clutching theater. The criminal conspiracy for insurrection without accountability would still be there even if you don't go looking, and those who did it or watched it happen and want to replicate it (but more successfully) know it was there.
|
United States24342 Posts
On June 24 2022 00:56 NewSunshine wrote: It's wrong because they've been watching the same string of killings that the rest of the world has been seeing, and when given the option to put a thumb on the scale and do something, they choose to facilitate would-be killers even more. They refused to read a room wherein school children and Black Americans are being killed because someone thought it would make for a fun afternoon, and there isn't shit that the law can or will do about it.
They had a choice between either upholding an extremely minor restriction on gun ownership, or blowing the whole thing wide open nationwide and abolishing any carrying restrictions. It shouldn't have been a hard decision. Take the trash out or go nuclear. They chose nuclear. Again. I think you are mischaracterizing today's ruling. The only actual change I'm aware of is that States can no longer require a subjective "need" in order to concealed carry a handgun. You still need to go through all the normal vetting (e.g., background checks) a State may choose to require. I don't agree with the overall interpretation of the second amendment by the right, but I'm not terribly bothered by the specific changes enacted by today's ruling (even if the justification was bs).
|
On June 24 2022 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote: The committee certainly feels like a double edged sword where the more impropriety they uncover the more impotent they look in being able to redress it.
If there was a criminal conspiracy for insurrection without accountability it's possibly more damning than if there wasn't and this is all pearl clutching theater. I take the perspective that the more that is uncovered the better. The information and documentation regarding what happened has intrinsic value. Whether it means it was a nothing burger or treason, getting the record straight is valuable. I don’t need a single person to be indicted for this to be a success. The process itself is valuable.
|
I mean to me there was undoubtedly a conspiracy for a coup/insurrection/treason/whatever people want to call it. It wasn't well directed and was constituted of spineless nitwits so it ultimately failed.
I don't think the hearings are wholly worthless (they have historical value if nothing else), it's just of little to no practical consequence for the immediate problems it highlights.
Basically the investigation undermines the credibility that the US can have legitimate elections in the future. So it'd be better if it was just cynical Democrats making political hay out of a nothingburger of a protest.
Unfortunately the more nefarious stuff they uncover the more clear it is the US doesn't have the mechanisms to secure legitimate future elections/peacefully transfer power and/or hold the people who criminally interfere with said elections/power transfers accountable.
EDIT: The encapsulation of this crisis is that the guy who ostensibly orchestrated the insurrection (or whatever people are calling it) is the most favorable political leader in the country, more favored than the President running the government purportedly trying to lock him and his cronies up for what are increasingly blatant crimes (topically, things people thought they might need pardons for).
|
Northern Ireland20722 Posts
On June 23 2022 12:26 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2022 09:33 WombaT wrote:On June 23 2022 08:59 Introvert wrote:On June 22 2022 19:14 WombaT wrote:On June 22 2022 13:04 Introvert wrote:On June 22 2022 12:22 WombaT wrote:On June 22 2022 11:54 Introvert wrote:On June 22 2022 11:45 WombaT wrote: It’s total, total nonsense at best, irresponsible and dangerous at worst to perpetuate this nonsense, as we’ve already seen.
How’s about, if fraud is such a concern, voter IDs come in, free for all eligible voters.
No? Oh you don’t want to secure elections while making it as easy as possible to vote? Hm wonder why that is…
From a personal perspective it’s a damn shame that it’s the current incarnation of the GOP that’s had success in delegitimising faith in various institution and not some comparable leftist movement, god they have a really entrenched captive audience.
Of all the people to harbour thoughts of Revolution it’s THAT lot? Think I've said this before but every state that requires voter ID also provides it for free. Obviously you have to provide a few things on your end or it would be pointless. But it is free. At least that was the case last time I checked. And more and more the analysis is showing that voter ID laws don't reduce turnout, which we kinda already had an inkling of anyways. "Jim Crow 2.0" in Georgia turned out to be nothing of the kind. As for your last comment the institutions have discredited themselves. People are just finally paying attention. + Show Spoiler +Note: not an endorsement of stolen election rhetoric. Paying attention how? Believing in errant nonsense in lieu of trusting flawed institutions isn’t exactly an upgrade. It’s a complex, flawed world we live in but throwing the baby out with the bath water and going with a ‘Play your own reality’ book isn’t a great solution. Nonetheless yes you are correct, I don’t actually have any particular issue with voter ID laws provided they’re easy to obtain. Plenty of places do this with no disenfranchisement, indeed generally higher turnouts. Maybe I’ve missed it, if ‘the Steal’ was a legitimately held belief and I was a legislator, I’d be pushing my party, and indeed across the aisle to institute changes that prevent such an eventuality. Instead they seem to be rather doubling down on the rhetoric with sweet fanny Adam’s on the former front. Pretty much everything from the presidency, to the Congress, the educational system, even the health profession, they are beclowning themselves. by the way, Joe's Biden absurd claims about the Georgia ID law and how it was going to suppress votes (and the subtext there that elections there will not be legitimate) is of the same variety as "stop the steal." So I'm not interested in high ground arguments. In the PA gov primary, the top Democrat candidate (now their nominee) ran ads for the "stop the steal" guy in the GOP primary because he wanted to run against him (and will get his wish!). So I know even Democrat politicians don't believe their own rhetoric. (they tried to do something similar in a congressional primary but that guy just lost today). So disagree or not, we can already see from primary results that stolen election rhetoric doesn't actually mean that much to GOP voters. "Stop the steal" types are losing way, way more than they are winning (but there are exceptions). As a poll question you may get GOP voter saying it's not legit for years, but that's not new for either party, it just varies in form. The January 6th protest is just a in-your-face-version. I'd have to check but I wonder how many people here were hoping the electoral college would invalidate Trump's 2016 win? Remember there was a big push and we had more faithless electors than just about any other election in history. Yet that campaign had the same chance of success as the riot. The Electoral Count act may actually be fixed to make sure there is no ambiguity about the VP's role, either (that legislation has been on thin ice because Democrats wanted to push their whole election agenda into it). So regardless of poll questions, or silly things some activists manage the get into party platforms, those are not the issues driving voters and Trump's influence is waning. I hope it's gone by the time he might try to run again, but it is weakening. So from my perspective the silliness of the the stolen election debate is not the most pressing issue facing Americans. It's just what Democrats want to focus on because Biden sucks and is unpopular and they don't have jack squat to run on in congress, so they might as well do this. tl:dr stop the steal is not a strong animating force in GOP politics (with exceptions) and unlike Democrats after 2016, pretty much no elected Republicans are basing their criticism of Joe Biden on him being illegitimate. Just that he's a terrible president. ‘ Pretty much everything from the presidency, to the Congress, the educational system, even the health profession, they are beclowning themselves.’ The media in general, ‘Marxist’ universities etc etc. At this stage are there institutions this particular section of conservatism does have any faith in? I presume you’re a more traditional conservative and perhaps not an able spokesman in this domain. It strikes me very much as reactionary populism from people who are unable or unwilling to countenance living in pluralist societies that have institutions with specific roles who may on occasion do things one doesn’t personally like. If institutions are so flawed where’s the big push, the ideas to fix them coming from? Much of the impetus, at least visibly is dealing with the real important issues of the day like abortion, or trying to get rid of trans people. I’m sure there are other items on the agenda I have missed from my particular island the other side of the agenda. I would agree that the Dems are clutching on to the issue to detract from their own failings and it’s not the most important issue facing Americans, it’s still AN important issue. I mean we’re not talking 5-10% of people holding these kind of positions. Point taken re gripes about legitimacy, albeit with differing degrees of extremity. I’ve encountered enough belief that Russia handed Trump the election and pushed Brexit over the line to think those are pretty widespread views, ones I don’t personally agree with. One can still think the Electoral College is a bad rule to play the game by but still accept that it’s the system the game is currently played with. A lot's been said here the last 20 hours or so but Ideas are out there, it's just that most people on your side don't like them lol. There's no united push because the right is fragmented, just as it's been for the past 100 years. It needs outside forces to unite it (i.e. Communism). Something so obviously horrific that they put aside their differences. Without that foe, you get a split of people who want to return the world to the way (they think) it was or those who want to adapt. The current debate is whether the institutions we have can be saved or not. although again perhaps this is the perennial debate on the right no matter what is going on. If conservatives normally want to preserve the institutions we have, but eventually most of them decide they aren't worth saving...well that sounds like a recipe for a bad time. The political version of the golden rule, i.e. don't give the government power you aren't willing to let your worst opponent have, is not going to last on the right much longer if it sees the left run roughshot over the rules already in place. And at least to me the last few years have shown the left really accelerating. Since Obergefell they apparently think, or at least act, as if they are invincible. The little bit of conversation and convincing they tried to do is basically gone. Now of course in my mind that's the ideological and temperamental inclination of the left anyways, but that's why politics never ends idk writing in a hurry i don't feel this post is really that helpful... but we have a presidency that has become more important and yet less serious, a Congress that doesn't do anything, a media that hates differing ideas, an education system that doesn't educate, and a bureaucracy that has more and more partisan bureaucrats. It's conquest's second law coming to life. So do you burn it down or try to fix it? Perhaps the left stopped bothering trying to convince people who patently can’t be convinced? , i.e. don't give the government power you aren't willing to let your worst opponent have, is not going to last on the right much longer if it sees the left run roughshot over the rules already in place - Im unsure how this rule of thumb scans with ‘you can’t nominate a Supreme Court Justice in the final year of your term, except when you can’. We’re not even talking running roughshod over precedent, but a precedent they themselves established. but we have a presidency that has become more important and yet less serious, a Congress that doesn't do anything, a media that hates differing ideas, an education system that doesn't educate, and a bureaucracy that has more and more partisan bureaucrats. What are the proposes fixes to this in this particular lane? Let’s solve the issue of a President that’s less serious, but more important by backing and doubling down on a guy who invited a coup? Congress, ok that’s a fair shout. There’s plenty of differing ideas in the media. It’s the free market/the marketplace of ideas when it suits, moaning incessantly when it isn’t. I agree there’s clear flaws in the sector, but this is what a commercially driven, corporatised media is going to look like, it will largely bend with the wind of the majority, or particular captive audiences. What is the proposed alternative here? The left have some idea of what that looks like at least. The education system is in dire need of reform, top to bottom, structurally. Sure. That reform is not ‘stop educating people on things like Marxism and America will be fine’, which seems to be the main gripe. Bureaucratic composition I know not enough about to pontificate about. at this point I've addressed the court thing like 7+ times in this thread so I won't again. Suffice to say that Supreme Court nominations normally have the following pattern: if you have the votes (i.e. presidency and congress controlled by the same party) then in presidential election years seats are filled, and if there is split control they are not. The exact same thing is true is midterm years. That was not unusual in either case. Moreover, I don't expect complete ideological consistency from anyone, again I bet I could go back to after election 2016 and see lots of posts about how Trump could be prevented from taking office. And if not here, I could lots of other places. People on the right have ideas but one 1) most of them are non-starters to the left (even going so far as to disagree on the exact nature of the problem) and 2) because the media has a very distinct slant people are exposed to many of those ideas with them either being presented in the worst light possible or just having them be ignored. But the single sentence summary is the right is still debating whether or not and how to use state power versus trying to to use non-electoral means (culture, education, etc) to bring about the society they want to see. I think that's different than the left. Seems to me that all but the most hardcore all agree that the state should be used not just to protect those who need it, but to move people in the direction they want them to go. Conservatives aren't even all on the same page. I expect a good bit of pushback from those who say the small government rhetoric was all talk, but that's not correct. Having the votes, or not is realpolitik in action. It’s the disingenuous framing that I, and I assume others have an issue with. Instead it’s shrouded in precedent, a precedent that is thrown out the very next cycle.
‘You don’t have the votes for your nominee’, I mean it may irritate me but it’s the reality of the thing. Perhaps others have a different take, it’s precisely the framing itself that leaves a rather large taste of bad faith in the mouth.
As I should be more clear in articulating I’ve not generally been talking about conservatives in general, more this populist fringe/non-fringe that is more prominent in recent years. I think there is a fair bit of divergence there from your more traditional conservative type, although they’d rather push in a united front than compromise with the more centre-left types.
|
On June 24 2022 00:54 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2022 00:53 Silvanel wrote: It's wrong because letting everyone carry a gun is not making people safer, but the opposite. Gun is an offensive weapon. It's not a fucking energy shield from Dune. Well, unfortunately the only recourse is to change the Constitution then. Changing the Constitution is irrelevant to changing Supreme Court decisions, since Supreme Court decisions aren't based on the Constitution and frequently contradict it. To change Supreme Court decisions, you have to change the Supreme Court.
|
Northern Ireland20722 Posts
On June 23 2022 23:10 Sermokala wrote: Small government rhetoric was all talk and always was all talk. The only thing republicans have done in power is to explicitly make the government worse and give more and more money to the rich over the rest of the country. They've wanted to take away rights and restrict how people live their lives.
Look at desantis and how much government he's trying to shove into the market. His faith in his ideals are so fragile that he will force his state to pick up an insane debt and raise property taxes by a huge jump because a private corporate entity disagreed with him in public. He explicitly canceled a deal with a sports team because their social media liked a post he considers wrong think.
At some point introvert you need to stop and smell the fascism. Which is why it’s borderline impossible to take (many) conservatives seriously if you vaguely value consistency or good faith discourse.
Want your gay cake? Fuck off it’s a free market. Oh Disney did something (pretty bloody mild), better get the government involved.
It’s nonsense, there is nothing underpinning it outside of ‘whatever gives me what I like, I’m in favour of’. And then myself, or those of my ilk are pegged as not open to compromise or dialogue, or elitist for not understanding the plight of the poor downtrodden conservative.
I cannot have a dialogue with sands that shift whenever it suits, there is no frame of reference I have to operate under. There’s no shared tapestry we both operate from, albeit with different interpretations.
Although, ultimately there is a pretty clear underlining consistency which is, by whatever mechanisms required preserving a primarily white, invariably heterosexual orthodoxy and American primacy and fuck everyone else.
So the malleability of method makes perfect sense when viewed through that lens.
|
|
Well at least we know Biden is disappointed in how the high court is conducting itself. That'll fix it.
|
Northern Ireland20722 Posts
What is within the scope of ‘state contractor’ here?
|
On June 24 2022 09:23 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2022 12:26 Introvert wrote:On June 23 2022 09:33 WombaT wrote:On June 23 2022 08:59 Introvert wrote:On June 22 2022 19:14 WombaT wrote:On June 22 2022 13:04 Introvert wrote:On June 22 2022 12:22 WombaT wrote:On June 22 2022 11:54 Introvert wrote:On June 22 2022 11:45 WombaT wrote: It’s total, total nonsense at best, irresponsible and dangerous at worst to perpetuate this nonsense, as we’ve already seen.
How’s about, if fraud is such a concern, voter IDs come in, free for all eligible voters.
No? Oh you don’t want to secure elections while making it as easy as possible to vote? Hm wonder why that is…
From a personal perspective it’s a damn shame that it’s the current incarnation of the GOP that’s had success in delegitimising faith in various institution and not some comparable leftist movement, god they have a really entrenched captive audience.
Of all the people to harbour thoughts of Revolution it’s THAT lot? Think I've said this before but every state that requires voter ID also provides it for free. Obviously you have to provide a few things on your end or it would be pointless. But it is free. At least that was the case last time I checked. And more and more the analysis is showing that voter ID laws don't reduce turnout, which we kinda already had an inkling of anyways. "Jim Crow 2.0" in Georgia turned out to be nothing of the kind. As for your last comment the institutions have discredited themselves. People are just finally paying attention. + Show Spoiler +Note: not an endorsement of stolen election rhetoric. Paying attention how? Believing in errant nonsense in lieu of trusting flawed institutions isn’t exactly an upgrade. It’s a complex, flawed world we live in but throwing the baby out with the bath water and going with a ‘Play your own reality’ book isn’t a great solution. Nonetheless yes you are correct, I don’t actually have any particular issue with voter ID laws provided they’re easy to obtain. Plenty of places do this with no disenfranchisement, indeed generally higher turnouts. Maybe I’ve missed it, if ‘the Steal’ was a legitimately held belief and I was a legislator, I’d be pushing my party, and indeed across the aisle to institute changes that prevent such an eventuality. Instead they seem to be rather doubling down on the rhetoric with sweet fanny Adam’s on the former front. Pretty much everything from the presidency, to the Congress, the educational system, even the health profession, they are beclowning themselves. by the way, Joe's Biden absurd claims about the Georgia ID law and how it was going to suppress votes (and the subtext there that elections there will not be legitimate) is of the same variety as "stop the steal." So I'm not interested in high ground arguments. In the PA gov primary, the top Democrat candidate (now their nominee) ran ads for the "stop the steal" guy in the GOP primary because he wanted to run against him (and will get his wish!). So I know even Democrat politicians don't believe their own rhetoric. (they tried to do something similar in a congressional primary but that guy just lost today). So disagree or not, we can already see from primary results that stolen election rhetoric doesn't actually mean that much to GOP voters. "Stop the steal" types are losing way, way more than they are winning (but there are exceptions). As a poll question you may get GOP voter saying it's not legit for years, but that's not new for either party, it just varies in form. The January 6th protest is just a in-your-face-version. I'd have to check but I wonder how many people here were hoping the electoral college would invalidate Trump's 2016 win? Remember there was a big push and we had more faithless electors than just about any other election in history. Yet that campaign had the same chance of success as the riot. The Electoral Count act may actually be fixed to make sure there is no ambiguity about the VP's role, either (that legislation has been on thin ice because Democrats wanted to push their whole election agenda into it). So regardless of poll questions, or silly things some activists manage the get into party platforms, those are not the issues driving voters and Trump's influence is waning. I hope it's gone by the time he might try to run again, but it is weakening. So from my perspective the silliness of the the stolen election debate is not the most pressing issue facing Americans. It's just what Democrats want to focus on because Biden sucks and is unpopular and they don't have jack squat to run on in congress, so they might as well do this. tl:dr stop the steal is not a strong animating force in GOP politics (with exceptions) and unlike Democrats after 2016, pretty much no elected Republicans are basing their criticism of Joe Biden on him being illegitimate. Just that he's a terrible president. ‘ Pretty much everything from the presidency, to the Congress, the educational system, even the health profession, they are beclowning themselves.’ The media in general, ‘Marxist’ universities etc etc. At this stage are there institutions this particular section of conservatism does have any faith in? I presume you’re a more traditional conservative and perhaps not an able spokesman in this domain. It strikes me very much as reactionary populism from people who are unable or unwilling to countenance living in pluralist societies that have institutions with specific roles who may on occasion do things one doesn’t personally like. If institutions are so flawed where’s the big push, the ideas to fix them coming from? Much of the impetus, at least visibly is dealing with the real important issues of the day like abortion, or trying to get rid of trans people. I’m sure there are other items on the agenda I have missed from my particular island the other side of the agenda. I would agree that the Dems are clutching on to the issue to detract from their own failings and it’s not the most important issue facing Americans, it’s still AN important issue. I mean we’re not talking 5-10% of people holding these kind of positions. Point taken re gripes about legitimacy, albeit with differing degrees of extremity. I’ve encountered enough belief that Russia handed Trump the election and pushed Brexit over the line to think those are pretty widespread views, ones I don’t personally agree with. One can still think the Electoral College is a bad rule to play the game by but still accept that it’s the system the game is currently played with. A lot's been said here the last 20 hours or so but Ideas are out there, it's just that most people on your side don't like them lol. There's no united push because the right is fragmented, just as it's been for the past 100 years. It needs outside forces to unite it (i.e. Communism). Something so obviously horrific that they put aside their differences. Without that foe, you get a split of people who want to return the world to the way (they think) it was or those who want to adapt. The current debate is whether the institutions we have can be saved or not. although again perhaps this is the perennial debate on the right no matter what is going on. If conservatives normally want to preserve the institutions we have, but eventually most of them decide they aren't worth saving...well that sounds like a recipe for a bad time. The political version of the golden rule, i.e. don't give the government power you aren't willing to let your worst opponent have, is not going to last on the right much longer if it sees the left run roughshot over the rules already in place. And at least to me the last few years have shown the left really accelerating. Since Obergefell they apparently think, or at least act, as if they are invincible. The little bit of conversation and convincing they tried to do is basically gone. Now of course in my mind that's the ideological and temperamental inclination of the left anyways, but that's why politics never ends idk writing in a hurry i don't feel this post is really that helpful... but we have a presidency that has become more important and yet less serious, a Congress that doesn't do anything, a media that hates differing ideas, an education system that doesn't educate, and a bureaucracy that has more and more partisan bureaucrats. It's conquest's second law coming to life. So do you burn it down or try to fix it? Perhaps the left stopped bothering trying to convince people who patently can’t be convinced? , i.e. don't give the government power you aren't willing to let your worst opponent have, is not going to last on the right much longer if it sees the left run roughshot over the rules already in place - Im unsure how this rule of thumb scans with ‘you can’t nominate a Supreme Court Justice in the final year of your term, except when you can’. We’re not even talking running roughshod over precedent, but a precedent they themselves established. but we have a presidency that has become more important and yet less serious, a Congress that doesn't do anything, a media that hates differing ideas, an education system that doesn't educate, and a bureaucracy that has more and more partisan bureaucrats. What are the proposes fixes to this in this particular lane? Let’s solve the issue of a President that’s less serious, but more important by backing and doubling down on a guy who invited a coup? Congress, ok that’s a fair shout. There’s plenty of differing ideas in the media. It’s the free market/the marketplace of ideas when it suits, moaning incessantly when it isn’t. I agree there’s clear flaws in the sector, but this is what a commercially driven, corporatised media is going to look like, it will largely bend with the wind of the majority, or particular captive audiences. What is the proposed alternative here? The left have some idea of what that looks like at least. The education system is in dire need of reform, top to bottom, structurally. Sure. That reform is not ‘stop educating people on things like Marxism and America will be fine’, which seems to be the main gripe. Bureaucratic composition I know not enough about to pontificate about. at this point I've addressed the court thing like 7+ times in this thread so I won't again. Suffice to say that Supreme Court nominations normally have the following pattern: if you have the votes (i.e. presidency and congress controlled by the same party) then in presidential election years seats are filled, and if there is split control they are not. The exact same thing is true is midterm years. That was not unusual in either case. Moreover, I don't expect complete ideological consistency from anyone, again I bet I could go back to after election 2016 and see lots of posts about how Trump could be prevented from taking office. And if not here, I could lots of other places. People on the right have ideas but one 1) most of them are non-starters to the left (even going so far as to disagree on the exact nature of the problem) and 2) because the media has a very distinct slant people are exposed to many of those ideas with them either being presented in the worst light possible or just having them be ignored. But the single sentence summary is the right is still debating whether or not and how to use state power versus trying to to use non-electoral means (culture, education, etc) to bring about the society they want to see. I think that's different than the left. Seems to me that all but the most hardcore all agree that the state should be used not just to protect those who need it, but to move people in the direction they want them to go. Conservatives aren't even all on the same page. I expect a good bit of pushback from those who say the small government rhetoric was all talk, but that's not correct. Having the votes, or not is realpolitik in action. It’s the disingenuous framing that I, and I assume others have an issue with. Instead it’s shrouded in precedent, a precedent that is thrown out the very next cycle. ‘You don’t have the votes for your nominee’, I mean it may irritate me but it’s the reality of the thing. Perhaps others have a different take, it’s precisely the framing itself that leaves a rather large taste of bad faith in the mouth. As I should be more clear in articulating I’ve not generally been talking about conservatives in general, more this populist fringe/non-fringe that is more prominent in recent years. I think there is a fair bit of divergence there from your more traditional conservative type, although they’d rather push in a united front than compromise with the more centre-left types.
hmm this seemed like a good place to end it but i think i have a bit more to say.
first, the precedent is the realpolitik. If you look back in history that's generally how it goes. if the president's party has the votes, they seat someone close to the election, and if they don't have the votes, no one gets seated. but even by your own standard it's weird to pick a precedent you think made up and discarded immediately. Not exactly the best example of abandoning principle if it was barely a principle to begin with.
There's also been a populist divergence is both parties, the populists have had their candidates in both primaries, but they normally lose. Trump won, the reasons why i won't expand upon here.
the case of the baker is actually also really well understood as a case of religious liberty. I remember the days when gay marriage wasn't going to affect anyone else, but instead the moment Obergefell came down we went straight to bake the cake bigot. I don't think the people upset about that are being duplicitous. If I may, the left was just lying.
There was some debate about the Disney thing (i also don't want to go down that rabbit hole fully) on the right, but it helped that the law is generally popular among voters of both parties in Florida. but if we apply the "don't give the government power you aren't willing to let your worst opponent have" even in it's worst light the DeSantis and the legislature did is not really that egregious. removal of a tax break is really low on the pole. and again there's more there, but as the gun debate shows I don't think the left is interested in hearing about most of it. The ideological and temperamental underpinnings of that political persuasion makes it hard to see the logic of someone else's argument because it's so wound up in that person having "bad" thoughts. You would hope by now that the American left would know something about the second amendment, but they don't. Just the same platitudes over and over again combined with accusations that people who disagree are OK with dead kids.
So I wouldn't really get into the weeds of fights on the right, the foundation isn't there.
Edit: deleted out last bit. While true, not worth saying
|
That is really messed up.
|
On June 24 2022 13:12 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2022 09:23 WombaT wrote:On June 23 2022 12:26 Introvert wrote:On June 23 2022 09:33 WombaT wrote:On June 23 2022 08:59 Introvert wrote:On June 22 2022 19:14 WombaT wrote:On June 22 2022 13:04 Introvert wrote:On June 22 2022 12:22 WombaT wrote:On June 22 2022 11:54 Introvert wrote:On June 22 2022 11:45 WombaT wrote: It’s total, total nonsense at best, irresponsible and dangerous at worst to perpetuate this nonsense, as we’ve already seen.
How’s about, if fraud is such a concern, voter IDs come in, free for all eligible voters.
No? Oh you don’t want to secure elections while making it as easy as possible to vote? Hm wonder why that is…
From a personal perspective it’s a damn shame that it’s the current incarnation of the GOP that’s had success in delegitimising faith in various institution and not some comparable leftist movement, god they have a really entrenched captive audience.
Of all the people to harbour thoughts of Revolution it’s THAT lot? Think I've said this before but every state that requires voter ID also provides it for free. Obviously you have to provide a few things on your end or it would be pointless. But it is free. At least that was the case last time I checked. And more and more the analysis is showing that voter ID laws don't reduce turnout, which we kinda already had an inkling of anyways. "Jim Crow 2.0" in Georgia turned out to be nothing of the kind. As for your last comment the institutions have discredited themselves. People are just finally paying attention. + Show Spoiler +Note: not an endorsement of stolen election rhetoric. Paying attention how? Believing in errant nonsense in lieu of trusting flawed institutions isn’t exactly an upgrade. It’s a complex, flawed world we live in but throwing the baby out with the bath water and going with a ‘Play your own reality’ book isn’t a great solution. Nonetheless yes you are correct, I don’t actually have any particular issue with voter ID laws provided they’re easy to obtain. Plenty of places do this with no disenfranchisement, indeed generally higher turnouts. Maybe I’ve missed it, if ‘the Steal’ was a legitimately held belief and I was a legislator, I’d be pushing my party, and indeed across the aisle to institute changes that prevent such an eventuality. Instead they seem to be rather doubling down on the rhetoric with sweet fanny Adam’s on the former front. Pretty much everything from the presidency, to the Congress, the educational system, even the health profession, they are beclowning themselves. by the way, Joe's Biden absurd claims about the Georgia ID law and how it was going to suppress votes (and the subtext there that elections there will not be legitimate) is of the same variety as "stop the steal." So I'm not interested in high ground arguments. In the PA gov primary, the top Democrat candidate (now their nominee) ran ads for the "stop the steal" guy in the GOP primary because he wanted to run against him (and will get his wish!). So I know even Democrat politicians don't believe their own rhetoric. (they tried to do something similar in a congressional primary but that guy just lost today). So disagree or not, we can already see from primary results that stolen election rhetoric doesn't actually mean that much to GOP voters. "Stop the steal" types are losing way, way more than they are winning (but there are exceptions). As a poll question you may get GOP voter saying it's not legit for years, but that's not new for either party, it just varies in form. The January 6th protest is just a in-your-face-version. I'd have to check but I wonder how many people here were hoping the electoral college would invalidate Trump's 2016 win? Remember there was a big push and we had more faithless electors than just about any other election in history. Yet that campaign had the same chance of success as the riot. The Electoral Count act may actually be fixed to make sure there is no ambiguity about the VP's role, either (that legislation has been on thin ice because Democrats wanted to push their whole election agenda into it). So regardless of poll questions, or silly things some activists manage the get into party platforms, those are not the issues driving voters and Trump's influence is waning. I hope it's gone by the time he might try to run again, but it is weakening. So from my perspective the silliness of the the stolen election debate is not the most pressing issue facing Americans. It's just what Democrats want to focus on because Biden sucks and is unpopular and they don't have jack squat to run on in congress, so they might as well do this. tl:dr stop the steal is not a strong animating force in GOP politics (with exceptions) and unlike Democrats after 2016, pretty much no elected Republicans are basing their criticism of Joe Biden on him being illegitimate. Just that he's a terrible president. ‘ Pretty much everything from the presidency, to the Congress, the educational system, even the health profession, they are beclowning themselves.’ The media in general, ‘Marxist’ universities etc etc. At this stage are there institutions this particular section of conservatism does have any faith in? I presume you’re a more traditional conservative and perhaps not an able spokesman in this domain. It strikes me very much as reactionary populism from people who are unable or unwilling to countenance living in pluralist societies that have institutions with specific roles who may on occasion do things one doesn’t personally like. If institutions are so flawed where’s the big push, the ideas to fix them coming from? Much of the impetus, at least visibly is dealing with the real important issues of the day like abortion, or trying to get rid of trans people. I’m sure there are other items on the agenda I have missed from my particular island the other side of the agenda. I would agree that the Dems are clutching on to the issue to detract from their own failings and it’s not the most important issue facing Americans, it’s still AN important issue. I mean we’re not talking 5-10% of people holding these kind of positions. Point taken re gripes about legitimacy, albeit with differing degrees of extremity. I’ve encountered enough belief that Russia handed Trump the election and pushed Brexit over the line to think those are pretty widespread views, ones I don’t personally agree with. One can still think the Electoral College is a bad rule to play the game by but still accept that it’s the system the game is currently played with. A lot's been said here the last 20 hours or so but Ideas are out there, it's just that most people on your side don't like them lol. There's no united push because the right is fragmented, just as it's been for the past 100 years. It needs outside forces to unite it (i.e. Communism). Something so obviously horrific that they put aside their differences. Without that foe, you get a split of people who want to return the world to the way (they think) it was or those who want to adapt. The current debate is whether the institutions we have can be saved or not. although again perhaps this is the perennial debate on the right no matter what is going on. If conservatives normally want to preserve the institutions we have, but eventually most of them decide they aren't worth saving...well that sounds like a recipe for a bad time. The political version of the golden rule, i.e. don't give the government power you aren't willing to let your worst opponent have, is not going to last on the right much longer if it sees the left run roughshot over the rules already in place. And at least to me the last few years have shown the left really accelerating. Since Obergefell they apparently think, or at least act, as if they are invincible. The little bit of conversation and convincing they tried to do is basically gone. Now of course in my mind that's the ideological and temperamental inclination of the left anyways, but that's why politics never ends idk writing in a hurry i don't feel this post is really that helpful... but we have a presidency that has become more important and yet less serious, a Congress that doesn't do anything, a media that hates differing ideas, an education system that doesn't educate, and a bureaucracy that has more and more partisan bureaucrats. It's conquest's second law coming to life. So do you burn it down or try to fix it? Perhaps the left stopped bothering trying to convince people who patently can’t be convinced? , i.e. don't give the government power you aren't willing to let your worst opponent have, is not going to last on the right much longer if it sees the left run roughshot over the rules already in place - Im unsure how this rule of thumb scans with ‘you can’t nominate a Supreme Court Justice in the final year of your term, except when you can’. We’re not even talking running roughshod over precedent, but a precedent they themselves established. but we have a presidency that has become more important and yet less serious, a Congress that doesn't do anything, a media that hates differing ideas, an education system that doesn't educate, and a bureaucracy that has more and more partisan bureaucrats. What are the proposes fixes to this in this particular lane? Let’s solve the issue of a President that’s less serious, but more important by backing and doubling down on a guy who invited a coup? Congress, ok that’s a fair shout. There’s plenty of differing ideas in the media. It’s the free market/the marketplace of ideas when it suits, moaning incessantly when it isn’t. I agree there’s clear flaws in the sector, but this is what a commercially driven, corporatised media is going to look like, it will largely bend with the wind of the majority, or particular captive audiences. What is the proposed alternative here? The left have some idea of what that looks like at least. The education system is in dire need of reform, top to bottom, structurally. Sure. That reform is not ‘stop educating people on things like Marxism and America will be fine’, which seems to be the main gripe. Bureaucratic composition I know not enough about to pontificate about. at this point I've addressed the court thing like 7+ times in this thread so I won't again. Suffice to say that Supreme Court nominations normally have the following pattern: if you have the votes (i.e. presidency and congress controlled by the same party) then in presidential election years seats are filled, and if there is split control they are not. The exact same thing is true is midterm years. That was not unusual in either case. Moreover, I don't expect complete ideological consistency from anyone, again I bet I could go back to after election 2016 and see lots of posts about how Trump could be prevented from taking office. And if not here, I could lots of other places. People on the right have ideas but one 1) most of them are non-starters to the left (even going so far as to disagree on the exact nature of the problem) and 2) because the media has a very distinct slant people are exposed to many of those ideas with them either being presented in the worst light possible or just having them be ignored. But the single sentence summary is the right is still debating whether or not and how to use state power versus trying to to use non-electoral means (culture, education, etc) to bring about the society they want to see. I think that's different than the left. Seems to me that all but the most hardcore all agree that the state should be used not just to protect those who need it, but to move people in the direction they want them to go. Conservatives aren't even all on the same page. I expect a good bit of pushback from those who say the small government rhetoric was all talk, but that's not correct. Having the votes, or not is realpolitik in action. It’s the disingenuous framing that I, and I assume others have an issue with. Instead it’s shrouded in precedent, a precedent that is thrown out the very next cycle. ‘You don’t have the votes for your nominee’, I mean it may irritate me but it’s the reality of the thing. Perhaps others have a different take, it’s precisely the framing itself that leaves a rather large taste of bad faith in the mouth. As I should be more clear in articulating I’ve not generally been talking about conservatives in general, more this populist fringe/non-fringe that is more prominent in recent years. I think there is a fair bit of divergence there from your more traditional conservative type, although they’d rather push in a united front than compromise with the more centre-left types. hmm this seemed like a good place to end it but i think i have a bit more to say. first, the precedent is the realpolitik. If you look back in history that's generally how it goes. if the president's party has the votes, they seat someone close to the election, and if they don't have the votes, no one gets seated. but even by your own standard it's weird to pick a precedent you think made up and discarded immediately. Not exactly the best example of abandoning principle if it was barely a principle to begin with. There's also been a populist divergence is both parties, the populists have had their candidates in both primaries, but they normally lose. Trump won, the reasons why i won't expand upon here. the case of the baker is actually also really well understood as a case of religious liberty. I remember the days when gay marriage wasn't going to affect anyone else, but instead the moment Obergefell came down we went straight to bake the cake bigot. I don't think the people upset about that are being duplicitous. If I may, the left was just lying. There was some debate about the Disney thing (i also don't want to go down that rabbit hole fully) on the right, but it helped that the law is generally popular among voters of both parties in Florida. but if we apply the "don't give the government power you aren't willing to let your worst opponent have" even in it's worst light the DeSantis and the legislature did is not really that egregious. removal of a tax break is really low on the pole. and again there's more there, but as the gun debate shows I don't think the left is interested in hearing about most of it. The ideological and temperamental underpinnings of that political persuasion makes it hard to see the logic of someone else's argument because it's so wound up in that person having "bad" thoughts. You would hope by now that the American left would know something about the second amendment, but they don't. Just the same platitudes over and over again combined with accusations that people who disagree are OK with dead kids. So I wouldn't really get into the weeds of fights on the right, the foundation isn't there. And there's a chance any replies I get to this will bear that out unintentionally lol. But here's a hint: if you say, or have ever said, that people who like the second amendment are ok with dead kids, you are in fact part of the problem. Disney wasn't getting a tax break with their zone. They were paying a lot more property tax than the surrounding areas. the zone was to allow Disney to develop the land faster. With De Santis breaking up the zone and paying off the massive debt the new tax burden is going to fall on the local taxpayers a lot heavier than it was before. Disney is going to come out with a massive tax break as well as not having to service the debt anymore. Which doesn't seem like what de Santis was trying to do but Disney isn't going to argue with free money if he's offering it.
I mean the right is OK with dead kids. They would rather every citizen have handguns on their hips than move the slightest inch to prevent dead kids. If you want to keep the ideology that everyone should be able to have guns you can't be surprised when people use those guns to kill kids. If you want to talk about the benefits of having more guns in circulation you can go ahead and present whatever arguments you think are persuasive. Just don't be surprised when people point to literally every objectionable fact to tell you you're wrong. You would hope by now that the Right would learn that there is over 3 dozen countries outside of the US that are doing different things than we are and have lessons to learn about what works and what doesn't work.
Please tell me an argument for what the right wants to do, especially texas, that doesn't involve them being okay with more school shootings and more dead kids. If you refuse to do anything about dead kids or preventing more dead kids than you're the problem.
|
Was logging off but just to clear a factual thing... yes reedy creek is more than a tax thing, but the exact impact of the legislation is unclear in terms in impact on the surrounding counties. It seems to depend a lot on what the legislature does, as i don't think the law has actually gone into effect yet. Anyways the exact tax status not really the relevant issue and is not the aspect some people claim to have a problem with, at least not directly.
|
The law passed for it is like a page long and extremely clear what it means. It also is extremely easy to do math about it's costs and the relative tax rate compared to the tax rate paid by the surrounding properties.
This stuff is public information and it would really baffle me to see what problems people have with a operation investing more onto job growth and subsidizing their property taxes.
The law hasn't gone into effect because de santis saw it was really really dumb and is hoping people forget about it now.
|
Clearly the law is problematic from a moral standpoint. Businesses should not have to voice a certain opinion in order to win government contracts. This is not, however, removing anyone's right to boycott. They are still fine to say whatever they want. They just won't win contracts in Arkansas. Not everything has to be hyperbolized to the nth degree.
|
On June 24 2022 15:45 gobbledydook wrote:Clearly the law is problematic from a moral standpoint. Businesses should not have to voice a certain opinion in order to win government contracts. This is not, however, removing anyone's right to boycott. They are still fine to say whatever they want. They just won't win contracts in Arkansas. Not everything has to be hyperbolized to the nth degree.
So they are still fine to say whatever they want as long as they're willing to suffer the consequences?
|
|
|
|