Of course it depends on how you interpret the Constitution.Which is still down to a level of personal taste.Anyone saying 'I'm 100% objective and only base my decision on what is written' is either too full of themselves or doesn't really understand the role personal bias plays into decision making.Everyone has biases and anyone thinking they're somehow above it all are actually the worst.In fact the most dangerous individuals are exactly the ones who assume infallibility on their part that they somehow discovered the secret formula to never be wrong.
Trump Enslavement Syndrome - Orange man good. /r/The_Donald and any public demonstration of rabid pro-Trump enthusiasm in spite of all reason.
- Thread starter Mr Zero
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
I obviously agree but I am just saying that we will likely see a series of decisions, possibly penned by ACB, that will horrify liberals. I am speaking as one myself.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
One-term loser. The Jimmy Carter of Republicans.
In fairness to Trump Carter lost by quite the margin in 1980 there's losing and then there's Carter.I somehow doubt Biden will be the Reagan of democrats.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
As you can see, one of those release-the-Kraken guys has just told people not to vote in the Georgia runoffs because those are rigged too.
And just last night, Breitbart dropped an article that says he is, in reality, a secret Democrat - he donated to Obama! He donated to Perdue's opponent! Oh, horror!
What do you all think of this? Someone said to me that Republicans don't really believe that the election was stolen - that they're "kidding on the square" and that they'll be voting in huge numbers when the runoffs arrive. But when I see things like this... I wonder. Why would they be doing this if there wasn't a real worry?
And just last night, Breitbart dropped an article that says he is, in reality, a secret Democrat - he donated to Obama! He donated to Perdue's opponent! Oh, horror!
What do you all think of this? Someone said to me that Republicans don't really believe that the election was stolen - that they're "kidding on the square" and that they'll be voting in huge numbers when the runoffs arrive. But when I see things like this... I wonder. Why would they be doing this if there wasn't a real worry?
I think it depends on which republican.Most republican politicians have probably accepted they lost and are at most only paying lip service to the idea.Among the rank and file it depends on the state and or individual and how they were raised.If you were raised on a steady diet of conspiracies from a young age I think the idea of a stolen election appeals to you.If you're the kind of person that watched JFK and took it at face value it makes sense.If you're the kind of person amused by Joe Pesci and his wig in the same movie probably not.
- Joined
- May 25, 2020
It's hard to say whether or not a better response would have changed the tides for him, honestly.
To be real - what the federal government is capable of doing in situations like this isn't much beyond symbolic gestures and funding/disseminating research. Trump's admin funded the research fairly well, and it provided the financial supplies / distribution of supplies to states worst affected decently enough, considering that it and all of the admins before it had repeatedly downgraded the pandemic preparedness.
He failed completely on the symbolic level, of course- masks were turned into a partisan item rather than something that only the fringes either worshipped as panacea or decried as the devil, he kept contradicting his own preparedness team and the officials working on it, and he avoided espousing any coherent goals for what his policy approach on the pandemic was. I cannot explain to you what he was trying to do or what guided his actions, because there seems to have been 17 different people working on 30 different approaches.
Yet I think that even if he had espoused something that matched up to his supposed beliefs and was thorough in his implementation, there's no way it would have worked out to his favor. Think about if that was Clinton - would any of the right-wingers have given her credit if she had a response to the pandemic similar to the best of western non-island countries? Probably not. Especially not when the autumn wave hit, which hit even the most well-managed continental european countries that had hitherto been darlings.
Fundamentally, the US lives in such a system of digital overload and does such a shit job of teaching people at any and every level of education how to gather information that we're hopelessly partisan, with the bulk of people only processing information through tinted lenses, completely incapable of seeing it otherwise. IE, there was no response so terrible that Trump's faithful would abandon him in droves; there was no response so good that Trump's adversaries would have given him credit.
He failed completely on the symbolic level, of course- masks were turned into a partisan item rather than something that only the fringes either worshipped as panacea or decried as the devil, he kept contradicting his own preparedness team and the officials working on it, and he avoided espousing any coherent goals for what his policy approach on the pandemic was. I cannot explain to you what he was trying to do or what guided his actions, because there seems to have been 17 different people working on 30 different approaches.
Yet I think that even if he had espoused something that matched up to his supposed beliefs and was thorough in his implementation, there's no way it would have worked out to his favor. Think about if that was Clinton - would any of the right-wingers have given her credit if she had a response to the pandemic similar to the best of western non-island countries? Probably not. Especially not when the autumn wave hit, which hit even the most well-managed continental european countries that had hitherto been darlings.
Fundamentally, the US lives in such a system of digital overload and does such a shit job of teaching people at any and every level of education how to gather information that we're hopelessly partisan, with the bulk of people only processing information through tinted lenses, completely incapable of seeing it otherwise. IE, there was no response so terrible that Trump's faithful would abandon him in droves; there was no response so good that Trump's adversaries would have given him credit.
There was also earlier some suggestion that we're hopelessly to the right on the overton window. In what regard?
Policies which are commonplace in Europe have tended to evolve out of disastrously retarded approaches into sensible ones - American socialists are less kin to European socialists of today, and much closer to the retarded policies in the 70s which stunted your economic booms and led to such great political leaders as the crop you had in the '80s. Thatcher, Mitterrand, Kohl - you know, those guys.
Americans don't necessarily rebuke to the idea of socialized health care - we have medicare / medicaid. If you break it down to a state-by-state level, pay for it with a VAT tax, go through the ropes to show that moving the cost of health insurance away from employers and insurance in general drives the costs down overall, better emulate the German or Swedish systems rather than half-assing it, so on - if you make a case that makes sense, yeah, you'll run into some people adamantly opposed - but most will chew on it. If your argument is "we'll tax the rich at 90%, we'll completely scupper the military budget, and we'll impose massive restrictions on all businesses which corporations will just skirt around while small businesses get the bulk of, further centralizing economic control in the handful of corporate conglomerates which already are arguably monopolistic, and this will somehow pay for offloading an entire, massive industry into the public sector despite its at-face inability to raise funds through anything but debt," you're going to lose most people. "The rich will pay for it" is the beginning and end of the overwhelming majority of "how will you pay for it?" answers. That's what the US brand of socialist tends to argue for - I should know; I've been trying to get them to explain at the most basic level how to fund it. Yang was a rare standout who actually dared to suggest a VAT, and he got swamped and made to dumb it down to stay in good graces.
Similarly, you Europeans have had lots of Green parties over the years that evolved from a bunch of drunk and high hippies into fairly effective political groups that can make or break parliamentary majorities by pushing for some fairly sensible regulations - or regulations which, filtered through parliament, become sensible. What do US greens believe is possible? Well, that we can just ban all air traffic, we can build massive bullet trains across the entire country despite our inability to build a single high-speed rail down the western coast, that we can reach net-zero emissions in ten years, and that we can just ban all gasoline and diesel vehicles in around that same time frame. Oh, and we can also probably get away with banning most of the meat industry just outright, and can probably convert our entire grid to pure renewables within that ten-year frame for zero emissions. Not all of these are ideas in the Green New Deal, but really - give that thing a read.
In both of these cases, there are more measured and reasonable approaches that you could take that make sense and achieve those goals. I generally agree with most of the more sane approaches, but I can't stress this enough - that is not what the American left is pushing for. European-style government intervention finds its home largely in the American center-left, with a contingent of the center gelling for it as well. The right almost universally rejects it, though it's probable that Trumpian populism has created a hankering for Polish / Hungarian welfare + social conservatism.
But whereas you might expect to find the mainstream left and far-left pushing for more of that European-style governing, you instead find an entrenched DNC who seems content to encourage monopolistic corporations to grow in power and reach and control while entrenched public-sector unions essentially bilk government institutions of money and keep them from being even remotely efficient. Do not mistake US unions, public or private, for their European counterparts - it is very, very hard to defend most of what the US teachers' union does, for example. (Yet some degree of teachers' union has to exist, as lacking such a body, school districts try to unload the consequences of their shitty budget management and overspending onto teachers, cutting their benefits and pay to squat - the US system seems to encourage a choice between 'shit' and 'feces' in all regards.)
Going further left, you find a group of radicals so utterly utopic and so utterly convicted of nonsensical socialism that they're almost indistinguishable from Corbynistas - y'know, the group that really helped Labour sink to its lowest in nearly a century for how utterly inane and divorced from reality their platforms were. The American far-left would look at the state of Britain in the 70s and think "well, really, the problem was that a 2-day work week is much more feasible than a 3-day work week!" and blame all of the economic woes which befell the bongs as wholly on the backs of imperialist neocolonial fascist capitalist power structures. Maybe your college radicals calm the fuck down once they start working and begin to advocate more realistic platforms - ours double down and open up patreons and onlyfans, or they sit around drinking and doing drugs and feeling sorry for themselves while blaming all of their problems on the fact that we don't have a dictatorship of the proletariat.
The reasonable and thorough "here's how we do it" is not advertised in the US.
Americans don't necessarily rebuke to the idea of socialized health care - we have medicare / medicaid. If you break it down to a state-by-state level, pay for it with a VAT tax, go through the ropes to show that moving the cost of health insurance away from employers and insurance in general drives the costs down overall, better emulate the German or Swedish systems rather than half-assing it, so on - if you make a case that makes sense, yeah, you'll run into some people adamantly opposed - but most will chew on it. If your argument is "we'll tax the rich at 90%, we'll completely scupper the military budget, and we'll impose massive restrictions on all businesses which corporations will just skirt around while small businesses get the bulk of, further centralizing economic control in the handful of corporate conglomerates which already are arguably monopolistic, and this will somehow pay for offloading an entire, massive industry into the public sector despite its at-face inability to raise funds through anything but debt," you're going to lose most people. "The rich will pay for it" is the beginning and end of the overwhelming majority of "how will you pay for it?" answers. That's what the US brand of socialist tends to argue for - I should know; I've been trying to get them to explain at the most basic level how to fund it. Yang was a rare standout who actually dared to suggest a VAT, and he got swamped and made to dumb it down to stay in good graces.
Similarly, you Europeans have had lots of Green parties over the years that evolved from a bunch of drunk and high hippies into fairly effective political groups that can make or break parliamentary majorities by pushing for some fairly sensible regulations - or regulations which, filtered through parliament, become sensible. What do US greens believe is possible? Well, that we can just ban all air traffic, we can build massive bullet trains across the entire country despite our inability to build a single high-speed rail down the western coast, that we can reach net-zero emissions in ten years, and that we can just ban all gasoline and diesel vehicles in around that same time frame. Oh, and we can also probably get away with banning most of the meat industry just outright, and can probably convert our entire grid to pure renewables within that ten-year frame for zero emissions. Not all of these are ideas in the Green New Deal, but really - give that thing a read.
In both of these cases, there are more measured and reasonable approaches that you could take that make sense and achieve those goals. I generally agree with most of the more sane approaches, but I can't stress this enough - that is not what the American left is pushing for. European-style government intervention finds its home largely in the American center-left, with a contingent of the center gelling for it as well. The right almost universally rejects it, though it's probable that Trumpian populism has created a hankering for Polish / Hungarian welfare + social conservatism.
But whereas you might expect to find the mainstream left and far-left pushing for more of that European-style governing, you instead find an entrenched DNC who seems content to encourage monopolistic corporations to grow in power and reach and control while entrenched public-sector unions essentially bilk government institutions of money and keep them from being even remotely efficient. Do not mistake US unions, public or private, for their European counterparts - it is very, very hard to defend most of what the US teachers' union does, for example. (Yet some degree of teachers' union has to exist, as lacking such a body, school districts try to unload the consequences of their shitty budget management and overspending onto teachers, cutting their benefits and pay to squat - the US system seems to encourage a choice between 'shit' and 'feces' in all regards.)
Going further left, you find a group of radicals so utterly utopic and so utterly convicted of nonsensical socialism that they're almost indistinguishable from Corbynistas - y'know, the group that really helped Labour sink to its lowest in nearly a century for how utterly inane and divorced from reality their platforms were. The American far-left would look at the state of Britain in the 70s and think "well, really, the problem was that a 2-day work week is much more feasible than a 3-day work week!" and blame all of the economic woes which befell the bongs as wholly on the backs of imperialist neocolonial fascist capitalist power structures. Maybe your college radicals calm the fuck down once they start working and begin to advocate more realistic platforms - ours double down and open up patreons and onlyfans, or they sit around drinking and doing drugs and feeling sorry for themselves while blaming all of their problems on the fact that we don't have a dictatorship of the proletariat.
The reasonable and thorough "here's how we do it" is not advertised in the US.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
I think the definition of liberal is important here.
I don't think we'll see the Supreme Court make lots of decisions which would horrify classical liberals, like "Trump won because we say so", which would completely destroy the integrity of the Republic (and is what some of the TES types want, though I certainly don't). What we will see is more originalist and textualist interpretations that put an end to legislating from the bench, something which has been a major issue for decades if not centuries. I personally think this is a good thing, since it's the job of Congress to pass laws rather than judges, but people who really hate the idea of states being allowed to write their own abortion laws because there's nothing in the Constitution that says they can't might disagree. I would suggest that they contact their state legislatures and suggest that they pass the desired policies instead.
There are genuinely disinformation campaigns going on with Democrats trying to persuade Republicans not to vote on Parler. I don't know how effective they will be, but I would suggest very little of the "don't vote, it's rigged" nonsense is coming from actual Republicans.
https://old.reddit.com/r/ShitPoliti...pardsatemyface_user_misidentifies_democratic/
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2015
You’re half-right. ACB’s decisions will horrify anyone who doesn’t think America should be a giant playground for corporate elites where they can get away with whatever they want and run to Uncle Sam for money whenever they get a boo boo, as is the real purpose of “conservative” justices.
What she won’t do is challenge the woke social engineering agendas liberals will push through the courts, like the average normie conservative hopes she will- if she was of a mind to do this, she wouldn’t have been let in.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
The issue is that there is nothing in the Constitution that restricts the power of corporations whatsoever. Judges only interpret the law as it's written, so new amendments and laws would need to be passed to limit their influence. I can't see any interpretation of the Constitution that makes corporate welfare/bailouts illegal, or restricts it in any way (the closest is interpretations of the commerce clause). The bills to do so are passed through Congress, which is what needs to change.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2018
Politico has an article detailing all the fuckups of the Kraken legel campaign. Most have been covered before on this thread, but there are some news ones:
* Filling on behalf of a GOP challenger who never asked to be represented in the first place.
* Mislocated the location of the TFC Center in WI, instead of Detroit, MI.
* Confused Biden's margins of victory in WI and GA.
* Filling on behalf of a GOP challenger who never asked to be represented in the first place.
* Mislocated the location of the TFC Center in WI, instead of Detroit, MI.
* Confused Biden's margins of victory in WI and GA.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2019
Imagine discovering that Carole Baskins, Esq. had filed suit on your behalf via Twitter.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
"FAKE NEWS!" "Q PREDICTED THIS!"
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
But this isn't coming from a Democrat. This is coming from someone these people trust.
I should note how utterly on point it is that they had no problem with the Kraken shit until they told people not to vote.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
Lol i had a temp thread ban already for laughing at the Copium being huffed over there
If it wasn't for Teddy Roosevelt there would hardly be any kind of laws restricting 'Big Business'.And he only did it because he knew that once someone becomes dominant in one field(the economy) the desire for more pushes them towards another field(politics).Success breeds ambition and ultimately a desire to have it all.He knew what Big Business types really want if they were given a free reign.Total control which meant he was at risk.But even with these laws its unrealistic to expect SCOTUS would do much of anything.Businessmen not only have powerful friends in both parties but more importantly they have other means of forcing compliance.Blackmail is very effective as a tactic although business types don't tend to employ it against politicians since politicians have an even bigger intel service they can use if it got down to that.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
Oh-so-many idiots whining about repealing Section 230 because Trump got his feelings hurt.
I don't know who needs to hear this, but it's not going to be in the defense spending bill. The Republicans don't want to add it, and the Democrats naturally don't either. Tulsi Gabbard, noted kook, does not bipartisan support make. He can veto it, but it'll pass with a veto proof majority.
I don't know who needs to hear this, but it's not going to be in the defense spending bill. The Republicans don't want to add it, and the Democrats naturally don't either. Tulsi Gabbard, noted kook, does not bipartisan support make. He can veto it, but it'll pass with a veto proof majority.
zap2theextreme
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 24, 2014
It's bipartisan because Biden also wants to repeal it so as to combat "hate speech". That means they can throw you in jail for supporting Palestine or calling cops pigs.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
He can't do anything about it unless a bill is passed, and so long as Congress is so thinly divided nothing will happen.